Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CAMMELL LAIRD AND COMPANY BILL [Lords]

BRAZILIAN TRACTION SUBSIDIARIES BILL [Lords]

TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Purchase Tax

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied with the present arrangements for distinguishing office furniture from domestic furniture so far as Purchase Tax is concerned; whether, in view of the fact that the low rate of Purchase Tax charged on domestic furniture as opposed to office furniture has resulted in a considerable quantity of domestic furniture being used for office purposes, he will take steps to review this arrangement; and what has been the yield of Purchase Tax on domestic and office furniture for each of the last three years for which figures are available.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): My hon. Friend will not expect me to anticipate my Budget statement.

Mr. Nabarro: Having regard to the fact that many items of furniture have a dual application and may be used equally efficaciously both in the home and in the office, is it desirable to keep these two rates in existence? Would not it avoid all the evasion and fiddling that goes on today to replace them by a single, low-level, uniform rate, applicable to furniture as to other manufactured goods?

Mr. Amory: I always like to agree with my hon. Friend over something, and I agree that in this field there are features common to both. Having said that, I would repeat what I said in answer to my hon. Friend's original Question, that he will not expect me to anticipate my Budget statement.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a pottery piggy bank is subject to 30 per cent. Purchase Tax but, if painted with the words "Razor Blades", is subject to 15 per cent. Purchase Tax, the former as a toy and the latter as a salvage receptacle; why this discriminatory fiscal treatment is accorded to piggy banks; and whether he will free piggy banks of tax, as being conducive to small savers on the one hand and to proper salvage of steel from used razor blades on the other hand.

Mr. Amory: The distinction arises out of the decision of this House that toys should be taxed at a higher rate than domestic hardware. My hon. Friend will not expect me in such a vital matter to anticipate my Budget statement.

Mr. Nabarro: Is not it a fact that a piggy bank is a piggy bank, whether it is used in furtherance of small savings or as a receptable for the salvage of razor blades? It is still a piggy bank. Is my right hon. Friend really pleading for a system whereby the end-use of an article shall determine the rate of Purchase Tax applicable to it? In any event, how could either of these articles be classified as a toy?

Mr. Amory: While I do not underestimate the importance of encouraging small savings, particularly when there is a rural bias, I think my hon. Friend exaggerates the influence of his proposals on National Savings and salvage. If he fills a piggy bank with his safety razor blades he will understand the difficulty of subsequently extracting the blades for salvage without permanent damage to the bank.

Mr. H. Wilson: While not dissenting from the dialectical statement of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) that a piggy bank is a piggy bank, which is agreed on all sides of the House, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that while there have always been anomalies in the Purchase Tax scheme, the fact


that we now have seven different rates for Purchase Tax compared with three in 1951 is the result of patchwork attempts to deal with the problem over the past five or six years? Will he take a look at the whole system again?

Mr. Amory: I agree with the right hon. Member to the extent that quite often when one sets out to remove one anomaly one finds one has created another.

Mr. Nabarro: That was a very helpful supplementary question.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why boards and pillars used on a wedding, birthday or Christmas cake are free of Purchase Tax, whereas a sugar candle holder mounted on the cake is taxed at 15 per cent., the cake frill at 30 per cent., and artificial flowers at 60 per cent. unless they comprise paper leaves made without wire, when they are tax-free, but with wires for the same cake are taxed at 60 per cent.; and, as the Schedules lay down that when one article is part of another, the tax chargeable is that attributed to the complete article, and a cake is tax-free, whether he will remove all cake ornamentation from Purchase Tax.

Mr. Amory: I think perhaps my hon. Friend has misread Notice No. 78. The paragraph he has in mind relates to sales by registered persons. Cake makers are not registered and there is nothing anomalous in the fact that different articles used by them have already attracted different rates of tax according to their group classification. In any case, my hon. Friend will not expect me to anticipate my Budget statement.

Mr. Nabarro: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that there is nothing at all wrong with this Question? Is he aware that all the information in the Question has been carefully checked by the appropriate trade association, which is suffering all the vicissitudes of five different rates of tax applicable to a single article such as a wedding cake and the components of it? Amid all the range of absurdities in Purchase Tax, does not my right hon. Friend realise that this last Question I can put to him before his Budget takes the cake?

Mr. Amory: I want to be quite sure that my hon. Friend understands this

matter. When he comes to celebrate his half centenary, if he has a birthday cake, and if all the candles are made of edible sugar, they will not attract Purchase Tax.

Mr. Nabarro: What about the frill?

Mr. Amory: His laurel wreath—if he has one—if it contains any wire, will do so.

Sir A. V. Harvey: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sum has been received in respect of Purchase Tax on repaired cathode ray tubes from 1st January, 1957, until the latest convenient date.

Mr. Amory: I regret that it is not possible to furnish this information.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Is the Chancellor aware that about 60,000 cathode ray tubes are repaired annually by about 60 firms? My information is that very few firms are paying tax. Will the Chancellor have a good look into this question, because it affects many old people who are unable to pay either tax or the full replacement value? Will he consider completely withdrawing the Purchase Tax on cathode ray tubes and thereby simplifying the whole problem confronting everybody?

Mr. Amory: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is difficult to draw a line between small repairs and major repairs which amount almost to the provision of a new tube. The activities of the repair firms are very carefully watched to see that no tax liability is avoided.

Mr. Nabarro: Just one further Purchase Tax absurdity.

Entertainments Duty (Cinemas)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the reduction in the number of cinema seats in Great Britain as a result of 417 cinemas closing in the two years ended December, 1957; and the average annual amount of entertainments tax paid per seat in the last financial year for which figures are available.

Mr. Amory: There were about 250 thousand fewer cinema seats in December, 1957, than in December, 1955, and 362 fewer cinemas open. In the financial year 1956–57 the average Entertainments Duty per seat was £8 13s. 0d.

Mr. Swingler: Do not those figures reveal the gravity of the slump that has ocurred in the cinema trade in the last year or two? If the Chancellor of the Exchequer maintains the present rate of Entertainments Duty, will not it yield him diminishing returns?

Mr. Amory: I have nothing to add to the Answer I have already given. The hon. Gentleman must not expect me to anticipate my Budget statement.

Mr. Gower: While appreciating my right hon. Friend's Answer about his Budget statement, may I ask him, in considering this matter, to take account of the fact that, irrespective of the tax, the cinema is fighting a desperate battle now? Does not he think that this is a very special case?

Mr. Amory: I will take all relevant factors into consideration.

Mr. H. Wilson: While not expecting the Chancellor of the Exchequer to anticipate his Budget statement, may I ask him to study what has been said on this matter in past debates when he was not Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to bear in mind particularly the warnings from this side of the House year by year that this state of affairs was inevitable if something were not done?

Mr. Amory: I will take into consideration all relevant factors and I will look back at recent debates on this subject, as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the cost of collecting entertainments tax from cinemas as a percentage of the yield from the tax; and his estimate of the administrative saving which would result from abolishing the tax.

Mr. Amory: Precise figures are not available, but the cost is of the same order as the average cost for the collection and administration of Customs and Excise duties generally, that is, less than 1 per cent.

Mr. Swingler: If the Chancellor decides between now and Budget day to abolish Entertainments Duty, will he remember that he will not lose all the money, because he might achieve considerable administrative and manpower savings?

Mr. Amory: The hon. Gentleman has raised a rather hypothetical question.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to the case of the Ritz Cinema, Yiewsley and West Drayton, which has been saved from closure by public subscription in the expectation of the announcement of entertainments tax reduction on Budget day; and if he will take this case into account in framing his Budget proposals.

Mr. Amory: I have seen reports of this case, but I cannot anticipate my Budget.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Chancellor aware that this cinema has been saved from closure for the moment by the public-spirited action of citizens in the district, who want to keep open this centre of entertainment? Is he aware that there are many other cinemas in a like position on the margin of closure? Will he ensure that in his Budget statement there is an appropriate response to this public-spirited action?

Mr. Amory: By alert powers of perception and deduction, I think I can say that I now understand generally the tenor of the hon. Member's views on this matter.

Transferable Sterling

Mr. Roy Jenkins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the figure for United Kingdom dollar payments, on account with the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation countries but not settled through the European Payments Union, for the second half of 1957; and if he will now say whether part of the growth in this item over the past three years is accounted for by giving support to the transferable sterling rate.

Mr. Amory: The figure will be published in the next balance of payments White Paper in a few days' time. Expenditure in support of the transferable rate is one of its components, but as I informed the hon. Member on 4th February the main cause of its increase since 1954 has been the merchanting of United States goods. This, however, has absorbed sterling, which would otherwise probably have cost the United Kingdom gold and dollars through other means.

Mr. Jenkins: Is not it now clear that it can be deduced from figures hidden


away in these accounts and reluctantly explained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we are now paying an annual sum of over £200 million more in gold than in 1954, either to allow free commodity markets or to support the rate of transferable sterling? Is not this an almost intolerable burden? If, as must be the case, he knows it, ought not the Chancellor to give us the figure for the last half of 1957—which may show that it is costing still more—in order that we may see what is the up-to-date position?

Mr. Amory: We have to judge our net advantage very broadly in these matters, but I would ask the hon. Member to study the balance of payments White Paper when it comes out. No doubt we shall have an opportunity of debating these matters.

Mr. H. Wilson: When the Chancellor studies past copies of HANSARD, will he note that on 24th February, 1955, when the present Lord Privy Seal announced that this would be the method of supporting transferable sterling, we warned him that it would lead to very serious loss of gold and dollar reserves? Will the right hon. Gentleman frankly state to the House how much of the speculative drain on sterling last autumn was due to this factor? Will he tell us when he can expect the balance of payments White Paper and the Economic Survey?

Mr. Amory: I think the right hon. Member will agree that it has been an invariable practice never to give particular figures relating to exchange management. I would not agree with his general conclusion on this matter.

Hire-Purchase Finance

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that in hire-purchase trading the total loans increased by £80 million to £484 million in 1957, and that the high rates charged on these loans tend to increase the cost of living, what new steps he proposes to take to make his credit-restriction policy in this field more effective.

Mr. Amory: I am considering the whole question of the provision of finance for hire purchase, but can make no statement at present.

Mr. Osborne: Did my right hon. Friend see in the City article of the Daily Telegraph this morning the statement that:
Once again a hire-purchase finance company has stolen a march on the Treasury"?
In view of the fact that a month ago he promised to investigate and try to stop this loophole, will he do something fairly quickly to stop the abuse?

Mr. Amory: I have not seen the article or letter in question, but I shall make a point of reading it.

Local Authority Pension Funds (Investment)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many local authorities are taking powers to invest their pension funds, in part or wholly, in ordinary shares; and if he will make a statement on Government policy as regards investment by public bodies in the light of the tendency adduced by this figure.

Mr. Amory: Three local authorities have already taken powers to invest their pension funds partly in ordinary shares; I have notice of some nine others which intend to seek them. It is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government to object to a reasonable extension of the powers of investment of pension funds where there are adequate safeguards.

Mr. Osborne: Is not this evidence that local authorities do not think that my right hon. Friend will be able to conquer inflation, or they would not be wanting to buy ordinary shares? Are there further steps he can take to put confidence into local authorities to stop this development?

Mr. Amory: If local authorities have any doubt on that matter. I think they will be much encouraged by the progress made in recent months.

Mr. J. T. Price: Is not this the clearest evidence that could possibly be advanced that trustees are now becoming seized of the idea that if they are to carry out the duties of their trusts to the benefit of the people to whom they are responsible they have to gear their activities to inflation and not rely on fixed-interest-bearing securities?

Mr. Amory: I think it would be unreasonable to refuse local authorities a limited freedom to do what they believe is in their employees' interest.

Southern Regional Board for Industry

Mr. Brockway: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will authorise the establishment of a Slough district advisory committee to the Southern Regional Board for Industry.

Mr. Amory: I am awaiting a recommendation from the Southern Regional Board for Industry which has this matter in hand.

Mr. Brockway: While thanking the Chancellor for that Answer, may I ask him to bear in mind that the industries of Reading and Slough are very distinct? In view of the growing importance of Slough has an industrial centre, will he look on this proposal favourably?

Mr. Amory: I shall certainly take note of what the hon. Member has said.

Overseas Investment (Interest Charges)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider some means of reducing interest charges on the investment of capital in public projects in overseas territories in view of the loss of contracts to British firms owing to the 7 per cent. Bank Rate.

Mr. Brockway: On a point of order. This Question was tabled before the reduction in the Bank Rate. Of course, the figure should now be 6 per cent.

Mr. Amory: I do not think that it would be appropriate to introduce any special arrangements of the kind suggested. It is not my policy to influence in a discriminatory manner the normal structure of interest rates.

Mr. Brockway: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Prime Minister of Ghana has just stated that it is impossible to give concessions to industries in this country because of the high Bank Rate? Would not it be desirable from the point of view of British industry that there should be some arrangement by which there could be a

reduction of interest rates to those countries?

Mr. Amory: I think the hon. Member knows that our policy has been and still is very much against anything that can be interpreted as an export subsidy.

Income Tax (Domestic Hereditaments)

Mr. Barter: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the aggregate gross annual value and net annual value, respectively, for the purposes of Income Tax, Schedule A, in the United Kingdom for the latest convenient year; and, of these totals, what were the amounts represented by domestic hereditaments occupied by the owner of the property or his family.

Mr. Amory: Six hundred and eighty million pounds gross annual value and £525 million net annual value in 1956–57, of which about £155 million and £120 million respectively relate to owner-occupied houses.

Mr. Barter: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount by which in the latest convenient year, assessments for Income Tax in the United Kingdom have been reduced as a result of claims for maintenance of domestic hereditaments occupied by the owner of the property or his family and the resultant aggregate reduction in Income Tax liability.

Mr. Amory: About £15 million representing about £6 million tax in 1957–58.

Mr. Barter: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the relationship between the amount refunded in maintenance claims and the amount collected under Schedule A, and consider whether the collection costs are really worth while?

Mr. Amory: I will take into account what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Barter: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the aggregate amounts allowed in the latest convenient year for Income Tax purposes in the United Kingdom in respect of the use for the purposes of trade, profession or avocation of a part of domestic premises occupied by the owner of the property.

Mr. Amory: I regret that the information is not available.

European Free Trade Area

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in the negotiations for a European Free Trade Area.

The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): Much further work in analysing the problems and devising possible solutions has been done. The Inter-Governmental Committee has recently met in Paris and will meet again next week.

Mr. Jay: As we are constantly reading in the Press that French opposition to the Free Trade Area is likely to wreck the whole plan, is not it time the Government made some statement to the House about what is going on and what the Government mean to do if the scheme collapses?

Mr. Maudling: I think there is some misunderstanding about this. The French have produced some proposals which they have put to their colleagues, the "Six". I understand they will emerge in the form of proposals from the six Governments. There is no proposal from the French Government as such before the Inter-Governmental Committee.

Mr. Jay: Do the Government propose to make a statement to the House and country soon about this matter?

Mr. Maudling: Certainly. As soon as we think it will help the course of negotiations.

Mr. Cronin: Will not the Paymaster-General at least agree that the French proposals are highly disadvantageous to the United Kingdom?

Mr. Maudling: I have just explained that we have not yet seen the French proposals. They have been put to their colleagues in the "Six", and not to me.

Sterling-Dollar Rates

Mr. Cronin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the unification of sterling-dollar rates of United States account, transferable and security sterling, in view of the recent close approximation of these rates.

Mr. Amory: I have nothing to add to the various statements made by my predecessors on this subject.

Mr. Cronin: If the right hon. Gentleman is tempted to define these rates, will he at least recollect the serious harm which was done when the Lord Privy Seal, in 1955, tried to liberalise sterling-dollar exchange?

Mr. Amory: I am satisfied with the present policies of Her Majesty's Government, which still are and have been in pursuance of the objectives followed by my predecessors.

Council on Prices, Productivity and Incomes

Mr. Darling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will ask the Council on Prices, Productivity and Incomes to consider to what extent managerial inefficiency is responsible for high production costs, high service charges, high prices, low earnings for employees and inadequate profits.

Mr. Amory: It is for the Council to determine the lines of its inquiries and the contents of its reports.

Mr. Darling: Is the Chancellor aware that the first Report which has come from the Council is based upon a false assumption, that everything is all right with British industry and trade? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, unless the Council pays attention to managerial inefficiency, which is responsible in many firms for high costs and prices and low earnings, it will continue to produce worthless reports?

Mr. Amory: I am afraid that I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's assumption or with his opinion of the Report which was presented.

Mr. Robens: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to invite the Council to proceed with any further work, in view of the fact that its Report is obviously of no value to the community?

Mr. Amory: The actions of the Council are entirely a matter for decision by the Council.

International Monetary Fund

Mr. Philips Price: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what official approach he has made to the Government of the United States of America with a view to securing its agreement to use the International Monetary Fund to


strengthen international exchange reserves by extended credit in the event of a deepening of the American trade recession.

Mr. Amory: The use of the International Monetary Fund is the subject of regular discussion in the Fund's Executive Board, which includes full-time executive directors from this country and from the United States. No new agreement with the United States of America or the Fund is necessary to ensure proper use of the Fund's resources.

Mr. Price: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this might be a very important means whereby a depression might be forestalled? In the event of public opinion in the United States being favourable towards it, will he keep his mind open about it and take action wherever possible?

Mr. Amory: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I think that the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank have both done extremely useful work during the past ten years. It may well be that there is still more important work for them in the years ahead.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is not the Chancellor aware that, as long ago as last October, when the Government were still complacent about the matter, we pressed this proposal on the Government, and it was turned down flat? Is he aware that it is not a matter of agreement as to the use of existing reserves but that the reserves of the International Monetary Fund need to be very greatly strengthened and enlarged in order to meet the shortage of liquidity in international trade?

Mr. Amory: I think that there are no signs, so far, that the resources of the Fund are insufficient; but I quite agree that a position may arise when the activities of both these organisations ought steadily to expand, and I hope that that will, in fact, be the course that we shall see followed in the years ahead.

Mr. Wilson: But will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, during the recent mission to Washington of high officials of his Department, this question was discussed with the American Government?

Mr. Amory: The right hon. Gentleman knows that we take every possible

opportunity of keeping in personal touch with the Administration in the United States on all current problems.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Would not part, at least, of the desired result be achieved by raising the price of gold?

Mr. Amory: I am afraid that I am not in a position to take unilateral action on that.

Gold (Import from U.S.S.R.)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he is importing gold from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Mr. Amory: Gold is on open general licence and can be freely imported from any source either by an authorised recipient or for sale on the London market. I see no reason to treat Soviet gold differently from any other gold.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Chancellor tell us whether it is the policy of this Tory Government to import more gold from Moscow in order to stabilise British capitalism? Further, does not he think that he would get more gold from Moscow if he adopted Lord Beaver-brook's very sensible advice and removed all barriers on trade with Russia?

Mr. Amory: I should like to tell the hon. Gentleman that it is entirely open to him to buy gold from Russia, if he wishes to do so, though I shall not be able to let him have dollars for the purpose and, after having bought the gold, he must not keep it but must hand it over.

Mr. H. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that in 1953 also this Government were kept afloat on "Red" gold. Will he say whether it is still the practice, on importing Soviet gold into this country, to melt it down and remove the hammer and sickle before it is re-exported to the United States?

Mr. Amory: I am afraid that I must have notice of that question. I am not sure that I shall be able to discover the information the right hon. Gentleman wants, even if he does give notice of it.

Capital Issues Committee

Mr. H. Fraser: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the unconflicting needs of reflating markets


dependent on primary production and checking inflation in the United Kingdom, he will now instruct the Capital Issues Committee to assist Colonial and Commonwealth Governments and private companies in their use of the London capital market.

Mr. Amory: No further instruction is necessary. After the Commonwealth Economic Conference in 1953, the Committee was asked to take note of the Government's undertaking to make a special effort to provide additional capital for Commonwealth development by facilitating the financing of schemes in other Commonwealth countries which would contribute to the improvement of the sterling area's balance of payments. This request has not been withdrawn.

Mr. Fraser: Surely, my right hon. Friend will agree that certain Colonial Governments have tried to approach the London capital market recently and have not been allowed by the Capital Issues Committee to do so. Is not this precisely the time when we should be doing things in the Colonies to build up areas when there is recession?

Mr. Amory: My hon. Friend will know that the demands are very greatly in excess of resources available. The Capital Issues Committee has a very difficult job to do, and I believe that it is doing it extremely well.

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the criticism being directed against the Capital Issues Committee, on the grounds that its attitude is dictatorial and its decisions, for which it refuses to give any reasons, capricious; and if he will investigate the methods and machinery of the Committee and make a statement.

Mr. Amory: I am aware that from time to time there has been criticism of Treasury decisions taken after the Committee has given advice, but this has usually been misconceived. I have full confidence in the Committee and I see no reason to make any special investigation.

Mr. Osborne: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the City regards some of the decisions as absolutely amazing? Since they have caused a good deal of dismay, will my right hon. Friend ask the Committee to reconsider whether it

could not give reasons for some of its decisions?

Mr. Amory: The Committee inevitably has to turn down some cases and when one is turned down I know how easy it is to regard the decision as amazing, as my hon. Friend has said. I repeat, however, what I said earlier, that I have complete confidence in the Committee and that I believe it is carrying out its very difficult work extremely well.

Commonwealth Economic Conference

Mr. H. Fraser: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now move to advance the date of the Commonwealth Economic Conference.

Mr. Amory: I do not think my hon. Friend's suggestion would be feasible.

Mr. Fraser: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that, with the continuing recession in the Unied States, the fall in various commodity prices, and the present tendency to have schemes for keeping down production even further, it is necessary that we should do something as soon as possible about those parts of the world which buy 50 per cent. of our goods? Would not it be advisable for the date of this conference to be advanced from September when we are likely to, or possibly may, enter the time when sterling itself comes under pressure?

Mr. Amory: There is an immense amount of preparatory work to be done, and it is being done. I think that the date chosen, as suggested by the Canadian Government and agreed to by other Commonwealth Governments, is really timely.

United States Forces, United Kingdom (Petrol)

Sir A. Gomme-Duncan: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what terms American Service men in Great Britain are allowed tax-free petrol.

Mr. Amory: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) on 18th March last.

Sir A. Gomme-Duncan: Bearing in mind the fact that we all wish American Service men the best possible conditions while they are serving in our country,


will my right hon. Friend say whether they are better off in this respect than our own Service men?

Mr. Amory: They are no better off than Service men in other N.A.T.O. countries. We are following the principle which is adopted generally by other N.A.T.O. countries.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Can the Chancellor say what steps are being taken to prevent this petrol getting into wrong hands so that, thereby, others avoid tax? What steps is he taking to prevent the creation of a black market in this petrol? Is he aware that when Amendments to Finance Bills have been suggested in the past to establish tax discrimination in favour of public service vehicles, the argument has been advanced that it was not possible because a black market would be created? How is it that a black market will not be created in this case, but that one would be if petrol were made tax-free for public service vehicles?

Mr. Amory: There is close supervision between American authorities and our own officials. We are watching the situation very closely, and so far we believe that there is unlikely to be serious abuses.

Mr. H. Wilson: In all seriousness, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look again at this matter, which I am sure is causing great concern in all parts of the country? I do not think that the country is satisfied that there should be this tax-free system for petrol. The concession does not apply to Purchase Tax, as we know from a case reported in today's Press. Will he have a look at the whole question again? If the system is to continue, will he, at any rate, explain to the country why it is necessary?

Mr. Amory: I cannot believe that any hon. Member would wish American Service personnel to be worse off when they are stationed in this country than they would be if they were stationed in other N.A.T.O. countries.

Mr. Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will extend the scheme whereby he allows American Service men to use 8,000,000 gallons of petrol per year tax free, to doctors, midwives and nurses, and to all other persons engaged on essential public service.

Mr. Amory: I do not accept that the cases are parallel, but the Question raises issues of Budget policy which I cannot anticipate.

Mr. Lewis: While not wanting to stop our American allies from getting this concession, is not it unfair that doctors and others in essential services should be in the position of being taxed, and taxed to a higher degree each time they do more work in the interests of the public, whereas our allies, who are also doing essential work, get away tax-free? The position now is that doctors and midwives are paying a tax to enable our American allies to have this petrol tax-free. Is that fair?

Mr. Amory: I do not think that there is any connection at all; but, as the Budget is approaching, it would be injudicious of me to answer in detail the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.

Mr. Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what initiative he decided to remit tax on the 8,000,000 gallons of petrol allowed to American Service men each year; and what is the total estimated loss to revenue in a given year on the remission of tax on this 8,000,000 gallons of petrol.

Mr. Amory: The initiative for this concession came from the American Service Authorities in this country. The annual cost, on the basis of consumption of 8,000,000 gallons of petrol, will be £1 million.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Chancellor, without anticipating his Budget, to say whether he could find £1 million to give to those engaged on essential services in this country to assist them to do their work in the same way as American Service men are being assisted?

Mr. Amory: That is a question that I could not possibly answer without anticipating my Budget statement.

Sir R. Grimston: Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether British personnel who go to the United States for training in the use of missiles enjoy the same tax-free concessions on petrol?

Mr. Amory: The tax arrangements on petrol are different in the United States,


so the remission would not be exactly similar. In principle, exactly the same concessions are available.

Furniture Industry

Mr. Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the concern felt by workers in the furniture industry at the short-time working and growing unemployment in this industry due to Purchase Tax, hire-purchase restrictions, the credit squeeze, and the rise in the Bank Rate; and whether he will take the necessary action to remove the cause of this unemployment and short-time working.

Mr. Amory: The percentage of unemployment in this industry at the middle of February was little, if any, greater than the national average, and the number of short-time workers at the end of January, 1958, was less than in the corresponding periods in 1956 and 1957. These facts do not seem to indicate a need for exceptional measures for this particular industry.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Chancellor aware of the fact that the trade unions in this industry, in both North and East London, have expressed deep concern at the position with which their members are now confronted so far as short-time work and unemployment is concerned? If the trade unions desire to make an approach to him on this matter, will he agree to receive a deputation?

Mr. Amory: I would ask the hon. Gentleman first to study the Answer that I have given.

North-Western Regional Board for Industry

Mr. J. T. Price: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he proposes to take to ensure that the North-Western Regional Board for Industry shall be enabled to function, in view of the declared intention of the workers' side to boycott the Council following his appointment of a new chairman who is unacceptable to the workers' side.

Mr. Amory: The customary procedure was followed in the recent appointment of a new chairman of the North-Western Regional Board for Industry, and I

understand that he is personally acceptable to both sides. I attach great importance to the successful functioning of these Boards and very much regret the trouble which has arisen. I hope that discussions which are now taking place with the Trades Union Congress about the procedure to be followed in making future appointments will lead to a solution acceptable to all parties concerned.

Mr. Price: Will the Chancellor please understand that the boycott of this joint Board by the workers' side is not inspired by any kind of personal hostility towards the chairman appointed? Is it not rather the result of a feeling that this is a departure from the basic principles of joint consultation laid down by Sir Stafford Cripps when these Boards were set up under his Ministry and a feeling that the whole arrangement is now falling apart? Furthermore, is not it to be deplored that, in a situation where we have rising unemployment and other related industrial problems, confidence in this Board is now being shaken? Will the Chancellor do something to restore confidence?

Mr. Amory: My difficulty is that I cannot understand why confidence in this Board should be shaken. As far as I am aware, the procedure followed on this occasion was precisely similar, and we now have exactly the same number of trade union chairmen of Regional Boards as we had when Sir Stafford Cripps resuscitated this scheme in 1945.

Cost of Living

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how far recent figures show that the rise in the cost of living is being checked.

Mr. Amory: The Index of Retail Prices in February was one point above the figure for July, 1957, and it has remained virtually stationary for the last four months.

Mr. Jay: Can the Chancellor explain why it is that, although import prices have fallen by more than 10 per cent. in the last twelve months, retail prices are still higher than they were twelve months ago?

Mr. Amory: So far as that is correct, it is due to the fact that we have not yet fully overcome internal inflation.

Ministers' Titles (Printing Costs)

Mr. Darling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will estimate the financial savings in printing and other costs by simplifying the present lengthy titles of Ministers in official documents, in particular by reducing the printed titles of the appropriate Ministers to Minister of Local Government, Minister of Food, Foreign Secretary, Colonial Secretary, Scottish Secretary, Minister of Transport, Minister of Labour, and Minister of Pensions.

Mr. Amory: I estimate that the savings would be negligible.

Mr. Darling: I understand that the Order Paper and printed reports come under your jurisdiction, Mr. Speaker, but if you would permit me to use the Order Paper as an example, may I ask the Chancellor whether he realises that I have counted the number of words that would have been saved in last week's Order Paper? The saving would have been in the region of 1·5 per cent. of paper and printing costs in addition to the saving of time, energy and labour spent by hon. Members and Clerks in writing out these fatuously long titles. May I ask the Chancellor whether he will consult with you, Mr. Speaker, and others concerned, to see if an arrangement of the type that I propose can be made?

Mr. Amory: I have not been able to afford the Civil Service manpower to carry out the detailed investigations that the hon. Member has carried out.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the Chancellor aware that hon. Members on both sides, having heard an Answer from a Minister, thank the Minister for the Answer and that that wastes a great deal of time and space?

Mr. Amory: It is very polite, and Ministers like it.

£ Notes (Import)

Mr. Roy Jenkins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the purpose of freeing the import of £ notes into this country.

Mr. Amory: This relaxation will reduce controls at the ports, ease one of the problems of visitors to this country, enable Her Majesty's Government to meet a request of the O.E.E.C., and strengthen the position of sterling generally.

Mr. Jenkins: Does the Chancellor really think that at a time when our foreign exchange position is still basically so delicate that we cannot afford any expansion at home, despite our healthy balance of payments position, he ought further to relax the exchange controls in any degree?

Mr. Amory: I repeat what I said earlier in answer to another Question. One must look at the net advantage in these matters rather broadly. I am quite satisfied so far that the step which was taken strengthened sterling and did not weaken it, in the short term at least.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend realise, in confirmation of what he has said, that the present system is infinitely better than what obtained before, when £ notes were not allowed to be brought into this country and were circulating at a discount all over the Continent, which had a bad effect on sterling generally?

Mr. Amory: I agree with what my hon. Friend has said.

Sterling (Rates)

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the Government's intentions concerning the limits within which the value of the £ sterling will be free to move in terms of the United States dollar and other currencies.

Mr. Amory: No, Sir. I have nothing to add to previous statements of Government policy.

Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we welcome the implication of that Answer that the Government are still continuing to resist the pressure, which last autumn was very strong, from the Bank of England to widen the rates within which sterling could move?

Mr. Amory: I know of no change in Government policy in recent months.

Exchange and Economic Controls

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement concerning the Government's intentions about legislation to repeal or amend existing statutory powers in the field of exchange control.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what economic controls he is proposing to abandon, in view of the recent announcement of general Government policy in this regard.

Mr. Amory: The Government's policy is to do away with powers exercised under emergency legislation. This means abolishing those controls exercised under it which are no longer needed and seeking permanent powers to cover those which are. I have no statement to make at present in regard to economic controls.

Mr. Wilson: While we understand the intoxicating effect upon the Lord Privy Seal of his audience a week last Friday, may I ask whether the Chancellor is aware that we shall strongly support him in refusing to get rid of some of the essential exchange control regulations which are vital for the maintenance of sterling at this time?

Mr. Amory: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I are in complete accord in regard to Government policy in this matter.

Museums (Treasury Grants)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he has reduced the Treasury grant to the British Museum, the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery.

Mr. Amory: I assume the hon. Member is referring to annual purchase grants. If he will look at the Estimates he will find that there has been no such reduction.

Mr. Lipton: That will take some time. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has cut the grant to the British Museum by £65,000, that to the National Gallery by £12,000, and that to the Tate Gallery by £2,500? Are we so hard up that we must impose these miserly cheese-paring cuts on great national cultural institutions? The Government are behaving like a lot of barbarians and ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Mr. Amory: The hon. Member has made the mistake of not differentiating between annual grants and grants for specific purposes.

Civil Servants (Private Cars)

Mr. Page: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Civil Service National Whitley Council has now con-

cluded its consideration of the rates of payment for authorised use of private vehicles on Government business; and with what results.

Mr. Amory: Not yet, Sir.

Mr. Page: Does my right hon. Friend expect this report soon?

Mr. Amory: I shall not be able to say until the negotiations have reached finality.

Port Wine (Duty)

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the letter sent to him by the Port Wine Trade Association concerning the rates of duty; and what reply he will give.

Colonel Beamish: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the memorandum setting out the case for a reduction in the present import duties on port from the Port Wine Trade Association, dated February, 1958; if he is aware of the strong support in the House for the case put forward by the Association; and if he will give an assurance that he is giving sympathetic consideration to this case.

Mr. Amory: I am, of course, considering the case put to me by the Port Wine Trade Association, but I cannot anticipate my Budget

Sir W. Austruther-Gray: So that my right hon. Friend may keep this matter at the tip of his tongue, will he give an undertaking that when he discusses it with his advisers, it will be over a glass of good old vintage port?

Mr. Amory: In spite of the stimulating nature of the subject, I must stand on my reply that I cannot anticipate my Budget statement.

Mr. Snow: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that port is a civilised and civilising drink and that although it is sometimes unfortunately qualified with lemon, it is traditionally a good working-class drink?

Mr. Amory: I think I can express agreement with every word that the hon. Member says.

Bank Rate

Mr. Cronin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the approximate saving per annum to the National Debt charge and to the United Kingdom balance of payments on current account if the Bank Rate were reduced from six to four per cent.

Mr. Amory: I have nothing to add to the replies given to the right hon. Member Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) on 29th October, 1957, and to the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) himself on 16th May, 1957.

Mr. Cronin: As the right hon. Gentleman last week made a commendable advance towards lower interest rates, will he pluck up courage and advance still further in the immediate future?

Mr. Amory: We shall see as time goes on.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Answer given to me on 29th October had nothing whatever to do with this Question? Will he now answer the Question?

Mr. Amory: I think it certainly had general relevance to the Question.

Taxation Assessments (Personal Expenses)

Mr. Cronin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will arrange for statistical records to be kept of the different types of personal expenses which the Board of Inland Revenue accept as deductible from corporate profits and personal incomes for the purpose of taxation assessments.

Mr. Amory: No, Sir. I do not consider the value of such records would be worth the cost of compiling them.

Mr. Cronin: Is the Chancellor aware how disappointing his Answer is? Is not it the case that excessive personal expenses are a very large source of lost revenue and fiscal inequality? Would not it, therefore, be desirable to have a careful investigation of the matter?

Mr. Amory: I am sure that if the hon. Member realised what a gigantic task he is asking to be carried out, he would agree with what I have said.

Brandy and Still Light Foreign Wines

Mr. Lagden: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the Customs duties on brandy and still light foreign wines compare with the duties applied to them in the post-Budget period of 1920.

Mr. Amory: The present basic Customs duties on brandy and still light foreign wines are respectively some three and five times those applicable in the post-Budget period of 1920.

Mr. Lagden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these substantial increases are very high indeed? Is he, however, further aware that for heavy wines and port wines, the rates are still 16½ times those of 1920? Can he look at this sympathetically?

Mr. Amory: I will take note of what my hon. Friend has said.

CYPRUS

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister which Minister is now conducting negotiations regarding the future of Cyprus.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): My right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary is the Minister responsible for the affairs of Cyprus; but because of the international implications of the problem my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary is also concerned. They naturally maintain the closest contact with each other and with myself.

Mr. Noel-Baker: The Prime Minister has not answered the Question, which asked what Ministers are now conducting negotiations. In view of the fact that the Greek Government and representative Greek Cypriots have publicly stated within the last few days that no negotiations are taking place with them, and in view of the fact that the Turkish Foreign Minister has just said that the only basis on which he is prepared to negotiate as the final limit of Turkish concession is partition, would not it be better for the Prime Minister to say frankly that after years of delay and mistake the problem has become so difficult that the Government do not intend to solve it?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member is making a statement. I answered the Question which he put to me.

SUMMIT CONFERENCE

Mr. Healey: asked the Prime Minister to what extent it is Her Majesty's Government's policy to make agreement on the substance of major international problems a precondition to holding a Summit Conference.

The Prime Minister: Her Majesty's Government have never made it a condition that there should be agreement on matters of substance in discussions prior to summit talks, but only that there should be preparation likely to lead to a good conference at which some agreement might be reached.

Mr. Healey: Whilst welcoming the Prime Minister's definition of the British Government's position, may I ask whether this is also the position of Britain's allies in the matter? If it is, why on earth cannot the Western Powers accept Russian proposals for a Foreign Ministers' conference and cease this endless diplomatic minuet?

The Prime Minister: I think the position I have stated is the same as that which was stated by President Eisenhower in his Press conference on 5th March, and I am hopeful that it will be possible to make progress upon this basis.

Mr. Gaitskell: But would the Prime Minister give us some idea of the circumstances which will determine our decision in this matter as to whether he thinks there is a real prospect of getting somewhere at the Summit Conference? Is there not some danger in our present attitude that either a decision is reached not to have a Summit Conference, because frankly we cannot get anywhere without knowing what is to happen at the Conference; or, alternatively, that hopes may be raised too high at the preliminary discussion if we are told after it that there is a prospect of getting somewhere and then we find there is not?

The Prime Minister: I appreciate the point put by the right hon. Gentleman and I have tried all the time to keep a balanced position between raising hopes too high or dashing them or being negative upon the whole matter. I hope this

approach is the right one to achieve just that purpose which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any preliminary negotiations are proceeding at the present time? Is any diplomatic approach being made towards the Summit Conference?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows that a number of communications have been addressed by the Soviet Government to various Governments. I have still to make a further reply to one which was addressed to me. There are, of course, continual discussions between the Western Governments—if I may call them that—as to the best way of handling the matter in order to make progress upon the lines which seem to us best.

Mr. Shinwell: I am not speaking about the formal communications, the letters, that have been addressed on both sides to either side. Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a report in the Press to the effect that in the United States the Russian Ambassador to Washington has been engaged in conversations with Mr. Dulles, and is that the nature of the preliminary negotiations?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Of course, ambassadors come to see the Foreign Secretaries of all the various countries. I am not at all pessimistic about the outcome of this, and I think that the method by which we are approaching it is the most likely to lead to a result.

Mr. Gaitskell: Are discussions going on between the Soviet Government and the Western Governments at this moment on the matter?

The Prime Minister: Not formal discussions. There are, of course, always private communications, and just because they are private perhaps it would be better for me not to discuss them.

Mr. Bevan: Was not it suggested at the very start of these discussions that it would be much easier to hold a conference of Foreign Ministers first, and is not it taking almost as long to fix up a meeting between Foreign Ministers as it would be to summon the Summit Conference itself? When is it proposed to hold the conference between the Foreign Ministers?

The Prime Minister: There is at present a difference of view as to what is to be the task either of preliminary negotiations through ambassadors or of the Foreign Secretaries. Up to now the Soviet Government appears to wish to confine the preparation merely to choosing the date, the place, the composition and the agenda. We feel that if the agenda is to be selective in the way most calculated to lead to some result, however limited, it is necessary to have some preliminary discussion of the character of the agenda, because that is the only way to find out the subjects which should be discussed at the start.

Mr. Gaitskell: But is not the real difference between the Soviet Union and the Western Governments this, that whereas the Soviet Union is prepared to discuss the agenda at the preliminary conference, the Western Powers are insisting on what amounts to negotiation on specific points? Would not it be wiser in all the circumstances simply to confine the preliminary discussions to the four points mentioned by the Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir; because, first, rather strong positions have been taken up to try to rule out altogether certain subjects which seem to me to need further discussion; and, secondly, because I say with great seriousness that if, as I hope, we might make an advance—even a limited advance—it is important so to choose the agenda as to produce that result. Therefore, some discussion, not to reach agreement but to give a general idea as to how the agenda might best be chosen, seems to me to be an important part either of the ambassadors' or the Foreign Ministers' discussions.

AIRCRAFT (NUCLEAR WEAPONS)

Mr. Gibson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give instructions that no aeroplane carrying nuclear bombs shall be routed over a large centre of population, such as London, while on practice or training flights.

The Prime Minister: Existing instructions already cover the point the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that British-based bomber aircraft

carrying nuclear bombs, engaged in operational exercises or on training flights, are under instruction not to fly over European countries adjacent to countries belonging to the Warsaw Pact.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's Question is framed in terms too wide to enable me to give an absolute assurance of the kind he suggests at all times and in all circumstances. I can, however, assure the House that precautions are taken to prevent inadvertent infringement of the East-West frontier by British-based aircraft of all types.

Mr. Henderson: Would not the Prime Minister agree that it would be dangerous provocation if a bomber carrying a hydrogen bomb were to cross over the borders of any Warsaw Pact country, even unintentionally?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for calling attention to the point and I can assure him, as I have said, that precautions are taken to prevent any inadvertent infringement.

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now state how much plutonium of the type contained in nuclear bombs carried by Royal Air Force aircraft the human frame can absorb and survive; how long such plutonium remains lethally radioactive; and over how wide an area plutonium dust could be scattered by the trinitrotoluene charge in a nuclear bomb exploding by accident, such as being dropped inadvertently, or an aeroplane crashing, or for any other reason.

The Prime Minister: I have been advised that in the event of an accident by which some of the material in a nuclear bomb were disintegrated the radio-active hazard to human beings would be on so small a scale as to make the danger negligible. The recent accident in the United States confirmed this view. In my view, therefore, it would be irrelevant for me to answer the purely scientific questions raised in the hon. Gentleman's Question.

Mr. Zilliacus: But is not it a fact that examinations are now being made of the people in the affected area in the United States, although that was only a uranium fall-out? Is not it also a


fact that, according to the reports of American atomic scientists, plutonium is highly poisonous and could be scattered far and wide by the explosion of the T.N.T. charge in a bomb containing plutonium? Will the Prime Minister please look a little further into this matter?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Lots of things are highly dangerous, including plutonium, and lots of other gases and other similar chemical products, but I really cannot undertake to inform the hon. Gentleman of a number of isolated scientific facts. I do my best to try to get the information, but my responsibility is to be able to assure the House that the chances of danger in any particular form are negligible. This I have done and I will repeat.

Mr. Woodburn: Can the right hon. Gentleman arrange that these planes should not fly over the land at all, since we have the sea round about us, and if the planes flew over the sea, the bombs would not explode if they were dropped?

The Prime Minister: Broadly speaking, that is the policy, but in order to reach the sea, however near, one has to fly over at least a small piece of land.

AIRCRAFT (HIGH EXPLOSIVE BOMBS)

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister to what extent, and for what purpose. aeroplanes carrying live conventional bombs containing trinitrotoluene or some other high explosive fly over British territory.

The Prime Minister: High explosive bombs are carried periodically for purposes of training and bombing practice.

Mr. Zilliacus: What precautions are taken to prevent them being dropped accidentally?

The Prime Minister: The normal, proper precautions.

UNITED KINGDOM AND U.S.S.R. (VISITS)

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Prime Minister if he will discuss with Marshal Bulganin the possibility of establishing a scheme to provide funds to make possible a much greater interchange of visits between private citizens of the United Kingdom and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and to encourage and facilitate such visits in every way.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, While Her Majesty's Government are anxious to encourage contacts between private citizens of the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom, and while special visits can be arranged under particular auspices, I think there would be serious difficulties in a general scheme of subsidized travel.

Mr. Johnson: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he thinks it would be a good thing to send such an invitation on behalf of the British people to ordinary people in the Soviet Union, and to give the widest possible publicity at the same time to the fact that we were sending such an invitation? May I further ask him if he thinks that it might be more profitable to cultivate the grass roots rather than to try to scale the summit?

The Prime Minister: I have great sympathy with that suggestion and that is why the Soviet Relations Committee of the British Council, which was set up in 1955, is working on the promotion of Anglo-Soviet contacts in the cultural, scientific and technical fields. I am grateful to the many gentlemen who help in that work. A large number of exchanges of visits have taken place already under its auspices, but I think that in a general scheme of subsidised travel there would be other countries which might have a similar claim, and I could hardly ask for that general scheme to be introduced.

Mr. Paget: Has the Prime Minister any evidence that Russians who come here like us any better?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

MALTA

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Sir D. CAMPBELL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the outcome of his recent discussions with the Prime Minister of Malta.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): With permission, I will now answer Question No. 86.
The plan for integration was accepted in principle by the British Government in March, 1956. Last October and November, in talks with Maltese Ministers, we reached agreement on most of the outstanding points in the detailed plans for integration. Then, on 30th December last, a resolution threatening the severance of ties with the United Kingdom and her allies was passed by the Maltese Legislative Assembly on the initiative of the Maltese Government. In the view of Her Majesty's Government this has done great harm to the relations between the two countries and the future well-being of Malta which the plan of integration was intended to enhance.
In the discussions which have just concluded the Prime Minister of Malta refused to recommend integration to the Maltese people on the imaginative terms proposed by Her Majesty's Government. He attempted to attach a political condition, namely, the right to independence on a unilateral basis, which strikes at the root of a union in mutual confidence which was the basis of the integration proposals. It is impossible for the United Kingdom Government to pledge Parliament to proceed with integration unless a very different state of mind is shown. Her Majesty's Government are, however, prepared to resume discussion with the Maltese Government in order to find a modus vivendi pending consideration of long-term arrangements.
At the talks, the Prime Minister of Malta proposed that Her Majesty's Government should immediately enter into further financial commitments of a most extensive character or be ready to grant independence to Malta. He suggested that in implementing the plan for integration the United Kingdom Parliament should undertake that until such time

as full economic equivalence was achieved, they would be prepared to grant independence to Malta if a Maltese Government were at any time during that period returned to office with a mandate for that policy. At a later stage he offered to withdraw this proposal, provided that the United Kingdom Parliament were prepared to extend to the Maltese people, at their next Election, a choice between integration and independence.
In the cricumstances, I revived the tentative suggestion that rather than lose all the fruits of our long negotiations, Her Majesty's Government would be prepared, if the Maltese people so desired, to proceed with interim constitutional and economic arrangements for a period of five years. The essence of this five-year plan would be that Malta would be granted a constitution broadly on the lines of that proposed under the integration plan, save for the time being making Malta part of the United Kingdom and' providing for representation at Westminster; the same economic and financial arrangements; and, at the end of the five years, both Governments would consult together to review the working of the constitutional and economic arrangements and to consider whether they could then proceed to the conclusion of arrangements on a permanent basis.
Let me tell the House what our other offers were. In the first place, I made it abundantly clear that there was no question whatever of Her Majesty's Government abandoning Malta and its people, or of their being indifferent to the economic consequences of the effect of defence cuts. I repeated again the assurances already given about the level of employment in the dockyard until 1960 and again confirmed that pending investigation of the possibility of converting the dockyard to commercial use, no decision had been taken about its future thereafter. I repeated that we stood by the economic and financial commitments under the integration plan.
What, in fact, were these? We offered to provide over a period of five years capital assistance of £25 million for diversifying the economy. We offered percentage grants towards the social services costing not less at the start than £1 million a year and with provision for it to rise materially thereafter. We offered additional assistance towards remedial


measures in the event of there being, unhappily, substantial unemployment. We offered to set up a working party at once to consider what practical plans could be made in advance to deal with the problems that might arise if, despite the joint efforts of both Governments, there should be substantial unemployment after 1960 owing to changes in defence policy. As to the cost of converting the dockyard to commercial use, we made it clear that this is a separate issue and that it would not affect the arrangements which I have just described.
At our last meeting we discussed the 1958–59 Budget. I said that in the light of our current financial difficulties, our contribution would have to be less than in the present financial year; but we were still ready to provide the very substantial sum of £5 million. In our view and that of independent economic experts, the Maltese Government are fully capable of making a contribution from their own resources, such as raising a local loan. There was, therefore, no reason why the rate of advance in Malta need be slowed down. It was then suggested that there should be a period of three months during which Her Majesty's Government should provide interim financial assistance. The Maltese Government maintained, however, that this should be given without prejudice to the size of the United Kingdom contribution for the whole year and to the question of the Maltese Government making a contribution from their own resources.
It was not, however, possible to agree on the provision of interim financial assistance without prior agreement on these two points, since it would make the United Kingdom taxpayer liable for an unknown deficit which would, in the end, be determined only by the rate of expenditure which the Maltese Government decided to incur. Moreover, Mr. Mintoff maintained that he could not withdraw the resolution unless agreement had been reached at the end of three months on all outstanding issues.
I regret that Mr. Mintoff did not accept Her Majesty's Government's offers. He and his colleagues returned to Malta on 21st March. I have felt it my duty to this House and to the people of Malta to inform them of the full undertakings worked out in the negotiations with the Maltese Government to which Her

Majesty's Government were prepared to agree. With permission, I will circulate a full summary of them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir D. Campbell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have been, and still am, in favour of integration? Does he not agree that the proposals put forward by Her Majesty's Government in all these negotiations have been most imaginative and far-reaching in their implications and that they contain very definite assurances for the future well-being of Malta?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir. I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend, who has had a life-long experience of Malta, has said.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the Minister aware that no doubt Mr. Mintoff will want to present his account of what has passed between him and the Colonial Secretary and that it would have been far better if an attempt had been made to get an agreed statement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why"?]—on what has passed, so that there should be no argument about a very difficult situation? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the imaginative gesture which he ascribes to Her Majesty's Government was, in fact, the imagination of the Round Table Conference, comprising Members of the House, not merely of Her Majesty's Government?
When the right hon. Gentleman says that the United Kingdom was being committed to an unknown deficit, was not the difference, on his own version. between £5 million a year grant and £6 million a year grant? Is not the unknown figure about which this breakdown has finally occurred something between £5 million and £6 million? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is worth jeopardising our relations with this island, with all the consequences which might come from that, for the sake of £ million or less? Is there any greater difference between the parties on the financial side other than that?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Needless to say, I should have been glad had it been possible to arrive at an agreed statement.

Mr. Callaghan: Did you ask him?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Of course I asked him. The hon. Member has had so little experience of responsibility that I will not take seriously what he has said.
Of course, the proposals for integration came from an all-party Round Table Conference, but Her Majesty's Government endorsed the principle of those proposals and then proceeded to suggest how they could be implemented in a practical way, and made very substantial and imaginative financial suggestions. For that the Government are entitled to claim credit, and the people of Malta should know now for the first time what those proposals were.
As to what the hon. Member said about the breakdown having been over a small sum of money, that is entirely untrue. The memorandum which Mr. Mintoff submitted to me in the course of the talks asked, among other things, for a further undertaking in regard to a £22½ million industrial fund, £5 million for full unemployment benefits in the event of there being unemployment, and further unspecified sums to make up loss of revenue. I cannot believe that in whatever mood of irresponsibility hon. Members anywhere approached this suggestion they could accept it.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the right hon. Gentleman trying to get a settlement here, or is he trying to get a little back because of the differences existing in his own party on the question of Cyprus? Did he invite the Prime Minister of Malta to issue an agreed statement with him about the substance of the negotiations which have concluded, and, if so, did the Prime Minister of Malta refuse?
Secondly, is it not the case that the financial negotiations which have taken place, and the formula to which the right hon. Gentleman has agreed, were concluded before the Minister of Defence went to Malta and cast doubts upon the continued existence of the dockyard? In those circumstances, is it not natural that any Prime Minister looking after his own people would ask for a revision of those financial arrangements and the formula? Would the Colonial Secretary himself have done anything else if he had been in that position?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As I have said, I suggested that it would be better if we had an agreed statement on the talks we had been having for issue to the Press at the end of our talks, but it seemed to Mr. Mintoff—and I do not altogether

quarrel with him in this—that so wide was the difference that it was impossible to arrive at any such statement.
We are, naturally, deeply concerned about the anxieties which may exist in the minds of the men working in the dockyard. I made it quite clear in my statement—which, if correctly read, will answer the point—that the financial arrangements arrived at last year are a separate issue from the cost of conversion of the dockyard to civilian use.
Apart from that, we have undertaken to keep the level of employment in the dockyard until 1960 at about 12,000 people, and with regard to the half of those who are employed in ship repairing we are doing out utmost to arrange that private enterprise should take over the work of ship repairing—although, for the foreseeable future, the Admiralty will have work for such men to do— if there are firms in whom it can place reliance.
Quite apart from this, we made a firm promise about unemployment. We gave a specific and separate undertaking in the event of the level of unemployment in Malta rising and remaining above the United Kingdom level for a period of six months.
Last week I also offered Mr. Mintoff a working party to go into questions that might arise in the event of there being, unhappily, unemployment in the dockyard after 1960, but it was not possible to get that working party set up.

Mr. Bevan: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be deep resentment on this side of the House about his reference to degrees of irresponsibility in our approach to this problem? [Interruption.] I would ask him not to listen to the juvenile applause behind him. The same ridiculous behaviour took place over Cyprus a year ago.
Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the very formula which he has now recommended to the House as being one of the virtues of the statement was a suggestion which came from this side of the House, and that on several occasions—because we have always treated this question of Malta, following the Round Table Conference, as a non-party question; every party in the House was represented at the Round Table Conference—we have tried to facilitate an


agreement with the Government of Malta? He knows that very well.
Furthermore, is it not a fact that the statement which he has now made about the five years' arrangement is one that goes back on a promise of integration, and that it will be so received in Malta? Is it not true that integration, as we have understood it, means that we shall have three constituencies of Malta represented in this House? If three constituencies do not exist there cannot be integration. Therefore, is it not unwise, at this stage—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I beg hon. Members to treat this matter with a little more seriousness—for the right hon. Gentleman to have made a statement of Government intentions, which will be read in Malta as abandoning integration, without giving the House of Commons a further opportunity of discussing the matter? Has he not now made a party issue of what was a non-party question?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir. I really think that it would be best if right hon. and hon. Gentlemen would not only read my statement, but read the parts of it which will appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT referring to the various offers made, and then make up their minds upon the picture as a whole. As for any applause behind me, it was given in large part because I myself—and I think that the right hon. Gentleman would have felt the same in my place—did not take kindly to the suggestion that I was not telling the truth.

Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members on both sides of the House want to maintain good relations with Malta? Will he undertake to see that Her Majesty's Government's very generous offers to the Maltese are given plenty of publicity in Malta? Does not he agree that the alternative solution that he has mentioned—he stated that the Maltese Prime Minister would not accept integration under the terms which Her Majesty's Government are willing to accept—might be acceptable not only to the Maltese Government but also to the opposition parties in Malta, as it is a compromise?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Steps will certainly be taken to see that the statement that I have made and the information which will be published in HANSARD is brought to the attention of the people of Malta.

Mr. J. Griffiths: From the right hon. Gentleman's statement it is clear that the major proposal for integration, which was approved by this House—

Sir P. Agnew: It was not approved by this House.

Mr. Griffiths: It was. The recommendations of the Round Table Conference were approved by this House.

Sir P. Agnew: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at HANSARD he will find that the House was invited to take note of the recommendations.

Mr. Griffiths: Very well, I will correct my statement. That was the formal Motion.
The Government supported the proposals of the Round Table Conference, and they were also supported by the Liberal and Labour Parties. Indeed, with two dissentients, the majority of those taking part in the conference, including a member of the Government, as chairman, supported the proposal for integration. The Secretary of State has told us in his statement that arrangements for integration were practically concluded last autumn, and that the Government were ready to bring forward a Bill. Thereafter things went wrong because of the financial discussions which took place between the Maltese Government and our own Government.
An Election is due to be held in Malta within the next few months. Have the Government considered what will arise, following this statement today, about our relations with Malta—that there will be an Election, not upon a proposal adopted by the House for integration, but upon this dispute, upon the version of what has taken place that has been given by the Secretary of State and upon whatever version may be given by the Prime Minister of Malta?
I urge the House to consider that these have been negotiations between the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister. In these circumstances, is it not likely that the whole relationship between ourselves and Malta will be poisoned because in these discussions there have been differences? We have suggested to the Government that we might find a media by which this dispute between Malta and ourselves on financial matters could be settled.
We have now arrived at a position in which the Secretary of State has made this statement, which is bound to be resented in Malta. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] For this reason. The Prime Minister of Malta left this country during the weekend. When he was asked to make a statement, he said that he would report back to his Government. We all assumed—and I ask the House to remember that the Opposition have exercised great restraint in this matter—that the Prime Minister had gone back to consult his own Government about the last proposal put forward by Her Majesty's Government.
Now, before he has had an opportunity of doing that, Her Majesty's Government have issued this statement, which is bound to exacerbate the whole situation. I therefore wish to ask the Secretary of State whether he told the Maltese Government before he made his statement that this is the position of Her Majesty's Government, and, if so, in the event of the Maltese Government rejecting this proposal, what are the future constitutional proposals which Her Majesty's Government have for Malta?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that over the last few months, in a way, Her Majesty's Government's case has gone by default because we had never said what our proposals were. I made it abundantly clear to Mr. Mintoff, during our talks, that Her Majesty's Government must have full freedom of action to make their own position clear when they thought that the appropriate moment had arrived.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: Is it not a fact that, quite contrary to some of the suggestions made, it was the Prime Minister of Malta who did not want to enter into a definite political commitment about the future of integration until he could be satisfied about Britain's capacity or willingness to fulfil her economic pledges in the future? Therefore, if a breakdown did occur, it came not from us but from the Maltese Government. In these circumstances, can my right hon. Friend say whether this suggestion about a five-year interregnum would have precisely met Mr. Mintoff's own suggestion?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is a fact that in the earlier talks last year, the suggestion

for a five-year interregnum was put by me to meet Maltese fears that they might be tying themselves irrevocably politically. I again put it forward in a different context last week. I think that it has considerable merit, but it did not commend itself to the Maltese Prime Minister.

Mr. Bevan: Why did the right hon. Gentleman think it necessary to make his statement to the House of Commons about a five-year interregnum before returning the whole question to the House of Commons, where it belongs? The House of Commons decided—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will keep his face under control—on the recommendation of the right hon. Gentleman and the Opposition in the House, to accept the principle of integration—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—as put forward at the Round Table conference. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Is it not, therefore, highly improper for the right hon. Gentleman to go back on that statement and on that decision by the House of Commons on his own account? Will he now answer the question, where do we go from here? If this statement is taken in Malta as a statement of the abandonment of integration by the Government, at least for five years, what does the right hon. Gentleman think will happen in Malta? What do we do about it? Is it not desirable that the House of Commons should take possession of an issue on which he himself has blundered so badly?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The difficulty about answering the right hon. Gentleman is to disentangle a specific question from all that he said, but, as far as there was a question, I think it is true to say that it was the Prime Minister of Malta who attached new and altogether extremely different conditions to the agreement reached tentatively on integration. The integration, as he then saw it when he was here last week, was a different proposal from that which we agreed last year. I do not believe that it is possible to debate this matter by question and answer.

Mr. Callaghan: Mr. Callaghan rose

Sir R. Jennings: On a point of order. May I ask your help, Mr. Speaker? [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."] I will speak


up; there is plenty that I can speak up about, and there is no need to ask me to do it. I am raising a point of order with Mr. Speaker. Is it not detrimental to our relations with Malta, Sir, to carry on this discussion in the way we are doing?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order, but a matter for the judgment of the House. I would ask hon. Members on both sides to remember that this is a matter on which there has been a good deal of co-operation between the parties to start with. I think that perhaps the hon. Member who raised the point of order has some merit in what he suggested to the House.

Mr. Callaghan: Mr. Callaghan rose

Mr. Fell: With the greatest deference to you, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that we have now had approximately six propaganda speeches from the Front Bench opposite, two from one right hon. Gentleman, one from another and one from another? You did say, Sir, that your remarks applied to both sides of the House. May I ask you whether your remarks, though applying to both sides, do not apply particularly to the Opposition side of the House?

Mr. Speaker: My remarks were addressed to the House in general. I think that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) may now be allowed to ask his question.

Mr. Callaghan: I respectfully agree with the Colonial Secretary that we should not continue this discussion by question and answer, if the Government are ready to afford time for a debate, but, as far as I know, there are no facilities or arrangements for a debate.
May I therefore ask the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Colonial Secretary whether the Government can make arrangements for an immediate debate on this question so that the House may express itself, and that the whole story may become known to the House, and, what is more important, that the future of Malta may become a little clearer to all of us who are concerned about it?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Perhaps I may be allowed to intervene. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that probably question and

answer, although common on these statements, have reached a point at which to press them further would not add to our knowledge on this subject, on which we all take a great interest. I therefore suggest that perhaps hon. Members would like to read my right hon. Friend's statement and study it, and the annex which will be published with it, and that if the Opposition feel that a debate would be desirable perhaps they would make inquiries and deal with the matter through the usual channels.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The Prime Minister will realise that the statement of the Colonial Secretary will be read not only here but in Malta. We are concerned to try to save this situation. If we are to do that, may I remind him that it was his predecessor, as Prime Minister, who made this a House of Commons matter? May I urge him to consider affording time for a debate at the earliest possible moment, if possible this week, but certainly before Easter?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think that the proper way would be for the Leader of the House to discuss that with the Opposition in the ordinary way.

Mr. Callaghan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In those circumstances, I should like to ask your permission to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the breakdown of negotiations with the Malta Government and the abandonment of the principle of integration by Her Majesty's Government. In asking you, Sir, to agree to such a Motion, may I also say to you that I believe that were it put to the House you would find that it would receive support from all quarters of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the breakdown of negotiations with the Malta Government and the abandonment of the principle of integration by Her Majesty's Government.
I cannot find that that is within the Standing Order. In the first place, these discussions with Malta have been going on for a long time. This is not a new matter; it is a continuing matter. It is


true that the negotiations have reached what appears to be a difficult situation. But there were in the statement the words that
Her Majesty's Government are, however, prepared to resume discussion with the Maltese Government in order to find a modus vivendi pending consideration of long-term arrangements.
While these discussions are going on, I cannot find that this is a breakdown. On that, there is a dispute of fact, and when there is a dispute of fact the Standing Order does not apply. I think, therefore, that this is not a case for the application of Standing Order No. 9 and that the proper course would be for the House to arrange a debate in the ordinary way.

Mr. Callaghan: May I ask you to consider this point, Mr. Speaker? While we must accept your Ruling, will you consider that now a new situation has been created by the statement of the Colonial Secretary in relation to the principle of integration? In those circumstances, in view of the very distinct possibility of difficulties and troubles occurring, may I put it to you, Sir, that it is the essence of this situation that the House of Commons should express itself at the very earliest moment and in the interests of us all, both in Malta and in this country? May I ask you, therefore, to reconsider your decision?

Mr. Speaker: I have carefully considered that matter. I did not gather from the words of the statement as I heard them read out that there was an abandonment of integration. At least, there seems some doubt on that point. It is essential in these Motions that there should be agreed facts and not a dispute about them.
The other thing which occurs to me, and which I would put to the hon. Member and to the House, is that it was part of the Minister's statement that further particulars of the Government's offer regarding integration were to be published in HANSARD. I think that that is part of the statement, and without the full information I could not find it proper to deal with this under Standing Order 9. It would be a very bad precedent.

Mr. Bevan: With respect, Mr. Speaker, is not there a breakdown in the negotiations, and is not that the reason why a

statement has been made? Is it not a fact that the statement about five years has occurred for the first time, when all these negotiations have been conducted on the assumption that Her Majesty's Government were preparing a Bill for integration to be brought before the House at the earliest possible moment? Do not those two things constitute an emergency of a most serious kind?
Would it not be in the interests of this country and of Malta that there should appear in Malta a statement that the House of Commons is still seized of the matter, so that some tranquillising influence may be brought to bear there, rather than that the Maltese people should feel that the statement by the Government is a definitive statement of House of Commons policy in this matter?

Mr. Speaker: I have carefully considered what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but my view is unchanged. I do not think that anyone reading an account of what has transpired this afternoon would form the opinion that the House of Commons has come to a definite conclusion on this subject. A great deal of difference of opinion has clearly been manifested. Although the negotiations have reached an unhappy turn, I could not find that there is a breakdown or a final break with Malta. Weighing it all up as well as I can, I find that I must stick to what I have said.

Mr. J. Griffiths: One of the considerations you had in mind in giving your Ruling against the Motion asked for by my hon. Friend, Mr. Speaker, was that you did not understand that there had been a breakdown? The Prime Minister With respect, may I say that the impression we have gained is that there has been a breakdown. The Prime Minister of Malta was here last week for discussions and when he returned to Malta he said he had gone back to consult his Government.
The Secretary of State has made a statement this afternoon to the House, and in our view that statement, made without agreement with the Prime Minister of Malta, means that Her Majesty's Government have announced a decision without agreement with the Maltese Government, and that that is an effective breakdown of negotiations. In view of that, is it not desirable that the


House, which was originally consulted about this major plan, should have an opportunity of discussing the matter?

Mr. Speaker: From what I have heard today I think it is a fact that the negotiations have taken an unhappy turn, but that is not to say that there was a final breakdown. I should feel on surer ground if I knew what the Prime Minister of Malta has to say and his point of view, but I feel that I must adhere to my contention.

Sir I. Fraser: Can you guide me, Mr. Speaker, whether it is proper to adduce an argument to try to make you change your mind in this matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] If it is, I wish to catch your eye.

Mr. Speaker: I am always willing to consider the representations of hon. Members on a matter which is suddenly raised for my judgment and on which I admit I do not know as much as they do, because I cannot know everything. I think that what has been said has been a helpful effort to put the facts before me, and I am grateful. But, having given my Ruling, I think that the House should accept it.

Following is a summary of the main features of the proposals that have been worked out in negotiations with the Maltese Government:

INTEGRATION PROPOSALS

1. Constitutional

It would be provided in legislation that Malta would be comprised in the territories of the United Kingdom and Parliament would be asked to affirm in the legislation that in no event would Malta cease to have this status without the consent of the Maltese Parliament.

Provision would be made for Maltese representation (by three Members) at Westminster and Parliament would affirm that the representation of Malta would not cease without the consent of the Maltese Parliament.

Parliament would also be asked to affirm in the preamble to the legislation that they would not pass laws extending to Malta with respect to which the Maltese Parliament had power to make laws except so far as the United Kingdom Parliament might judge it necessary for the fulfilment of Her Majesty's Government's responsibilities for defence and external affairs and certain other specified purposes.

The new Constitution for Malta would provide for the disappearance of the dyarchy in its present form and for the Governor to act in accordance with the advice of Maltese Ministers in matters within their responsibility.

The Maltese Parliament would have power to legislate on all matters except those specified in a Schedule of excluded matters, of which the main items would be defence and external affairs.

The Maltese Government would have delegated to it certain executive powers in the field of external affairs, notably to negotiate trade agreements with neighbouring countries.

Her Majesty in Council would have power to make provision for Malta by Order in Council with respect to defence and external affairs where such provision is urgently necessary and for a limited period, in order to modify or adapt the law of Malta in those fields.

There would be provision in the legislation for consultative machinery in Malta and London.

The responsible Secretary of State would have certain powers of directing reservation of Maltese Bills affecting Her Majesty's Government's responsibilities for defence or external affairs or certain other specified matters.

II. Economic

Her Majesty's Government would approve and support the ultimate aim of the Maltese Government that after a reasonable period of years Malta should reach an economy and standard of living comparable to that of the United Kingdom.

It would be open to the Maltese Government after 12 to 15 years to request that their economy become an integral part of that of the United Kingdom.

The Maltese Government would recognise the obligation of the Maltese people to make sustained efforts to bring the economy of Malta to a level which, taking account of all relevant factors, was comparable to that of the United Kingdom.

A development programme would be drawn up on certain lines in consultation with Her Majesty's Government.

Towards this plan, Her Majesty's Government would as a first step provide assistance for the first five years, as follows:

Capital
A grant of £25 million over the five years.
The good offices of the United Kingdom Government to attract industry to Malta.

Recurrent
A minimum annual contribution of fl million towards the social services, or more as the case might be, as follows:

(i) Education:—one-third of the annual recurrent expenditure of the Maltese Government if it was less than £1,250,000 or one half if such expenditure were £1,250,000 or more;
(ii) Health:—one third of the Maltese Government's expenditure;
(iii) Other Social Welfare services:—one quarter of the Maltese Government's expenditure.

III. General

The above financial arrangements would be reviewed and the United Kingdom Government would be willing to assist the Maltese Government in taking remedial measures to be agreed if in consequence of any drastic change in Imperial defence policy, the level of unemployment in Malta should reach and for six months remain at a higher level than the rate in the United Kingdom.

A Working Party would be set up at once to consider in advance what plans might be made to deal with such a situation should it seem likely to arise, including the possibility of changes in the arrangements for unemployment benefit and gratuities for men discharged by the Service Departments.

An independent Commission could be set up after two years and would, in any case, be appointed towards the end of the first five years to review progress and to report on possible changes in the above arrangements.

FIVE-YEAR TRIAL PERIOD

1. Constitutional
A new Constitution for Malta broadly on the lines of the proposed integration arrangements, save the comprising of Malta in the United Kingdom and representation at Westminster.

II. Financial
The same arrangements as under the integration plan.

III. General
The same commitments as under the integration plan.

IV. Final arrangements
The working of the arrangements in I—III above would be subject to review by both Governments—at the end of the five years in order to see whether agreement could be reached to proceed with more permanent arrangements for the achievement of full integration or for some other agreed constitutional and economic basis for Malta's future.

DIVISION No. 44

Mr. J. Paton: I desire to ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a matter concerning the voting records of the House. It has been brought to my notice

that in the OFFICIAL REPORT for 21st February last, in a debate upon the Compensation (Acquisition and Planning) Bill introduced by the hon. and gallant Member for Gloucestershire, South (Captain Corfield), my name appears on the list of "Aye" voters in column 1643 in support of that Bill.

I am wholly opposed to the Bill and I can only assume that my name appears on the list in mistake for that of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). I should be the last person in the world to deny the hon. Member for Yeovil the honour that properly belongs to him in combining with his colleagues in bringing about the defeat of his own Government. I ask you, therefore, Mr. Speaker, what can I do to get the record corrected?

Mr. Speaker: I have heard what the hon. Member has said. These mistakes, although they are infrequent, do sometimes arise. I will see that the record is corrected in the way which appears best.

Mr. Peyton: As my name has been mentioned, Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to confirm what the hon. Gentleman has said, with the exception of his tendentious reference to the defeat of the Government. I did, in fact, support the Bill introduced by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Captain Corfield).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put:—
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 201.

Division No. 76.]
AYES
[4.10 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Barlow, Sir John
Bossom, Sir Alfred


Aitken, W. T.
Barter, John
Boyle, Sir Edward


Allan, n. A. (Paddington, S.)
Baxter, Sir Beverley
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)


Alport, C. J. M.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.Col. W. H.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Brooman-White, R. G.


Anstruther-Gray. Major Sir William
Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)


Arbuthnot, John
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Bryan, P.


Armstrong, C. W.
Bidgood, J.C.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.


Ashton, H,
Biggs-Davison, J.A.
Butler, Rt. Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Bingham, R. M.
Campbell, Sir David


Atkins, H. E.
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Carr, Robert


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M
Bishop, F. P.
Channon, Sir Henry


Baldwin, A. E.
Black, C. W.
Chichester-Clark, R.


Balniel, Lord
Body, R. F.
Cole, Norman


Barber, Anthony
Boothby, Sir Robert
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger




Cooke, Robert
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Page, R. G.


Cooper, A. E.
Howard, John (Test)
Partridge, E.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hughes Haliett, Vice-Admiral J.
Peel, W. J.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Peyton, J. W. W.


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Hurd, A. R.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh W.)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hutchison, Sir James (Sootstoun)
Pitman, I. J.


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hyde, Montgomery
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Cunningham, Knox
Hyl[...]on-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Powell, J. Enoch


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Iremonger, T. L.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Deedes, W. F.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Profumo, J. D.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Ramsden, J. E.


Drayson, G. B.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Rawlinson, Peter


du Cann, E. D. L.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Redmayne, M.


Duncan, Sir James
Joseph, Sir Keith
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Duthie, W. s.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Remnant, Hon. P.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Kaberry, D.
Renton, D. L. M.


Elliott,R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne,N.)
Keegan, D.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Errington, Sir Eric
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Roper, Sir Harold


Erroll, F. J.
Kimball, M.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Kirk, P. M.
Russell, R. S.


Fell, A.
Lagden, G. w.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Finlay, Graeme
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Sharples, R. C.


Fisher, Nigel
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Shepherd, William


Forrest, G.
Leather E. H. C.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Fort, R.
Leburn, W. G.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Foster, John
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'omb[...] &amp; Lontdale)
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Free[...]h, Denzil
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Speir, R. M.


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)


Gammans, Lady
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Longden, Gilbert
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Stevens, Geoffrey


Gibson-Watt, D.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Glover, D.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Godber, J. B.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Storey, S.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
MacAdden, S. J.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Goodhart, Philip
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Studholme, Sir Henry


Gough, C. F. H.
MoKibbin, Alan
Summers, Sir Spencer


Gower, H. R.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Grant, W. (Woodside)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Teeling, W.


Gran[...]Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Temple, John M.


Green, A.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Gresham Cooke, R.
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Grimond, J.
MacmiHan,Ht.Hn.Harold(Bromley)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr.R.(Croydon, S.)


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Maddan, Martin
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W.(Horncastle)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hon. Sir R.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Vane, W. M. F.


Harrison, A. B. C. (Ma[...]don)
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Marshall, Douglas
Vickers, Miss Joan


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Mawby, R. L.
Wade, D. W.


Harvey, John (Walthams[...]ow, E.)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R, G.
Moore, Sir Thomas
Wall, Patrick


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Hesketh, R. F.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Nairn, D. L. S.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nicholls, Harmar
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Nicolson,N.(B'n'm'th,E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hope, Lord John
Nugent, C. R. H.
Wood, Hon. R.


Hornby, R. P.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Woollam, John Victor


Horobin, Sir Ian
Orr, Capt. L. P. S
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Mr. Oakshott and Mr. Legh.


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Osborne, C.








NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Hayman, F. H.
Pearson, A.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Healey, Denis
Peart, T. F.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Pentland, N.


Awbery, S. S.
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Prentice, R. E.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Holman, p.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Baird, J.
Houghton, Douglas
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Balfour, A.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Probert, A. R.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Hoy, J. H.
Pryde, D. J.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Randall, H. E.


Benson, Sir George
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Rankin, John


Beswick, Frank
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Redhead, E. C.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hunter, A. E.
Reeves, J.


Blackburn, F.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Reid, William


Blenkinsop, A.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Rhodes, H.


Boardman, H.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn &amp; St.Pncs.S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bowles, F. G.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Ross, William


Boyd, T. C.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Royle, C.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Brockway, A. F.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Short, E. W.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
King, Dr. H. M.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Lawson, G. M.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Callaghan, L. J.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Carmichael, J.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Skeffington, A. M.


Champion, A. J.
Lewis, Arthur
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Chapman, W. D.
Lindgren, G. S.
Sorensen, R. w.


Chetwynd, G. H.
Lipton, Marcus
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Clunie, J.
Logan, D. G.
Sparks, J. A.


Coldrick, W.
McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Steele, T.


Collick, p. H. (Birkenhead)
McCann, J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Collins, V.J. (Shoreditch A Finsbury)
MacColl, J. E.
Stonehouse, John


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
McGhee, H. G.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Cove, W. G.
McGovern, J.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (vauxhall)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
McInnes, J.
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Cronin, J. D.
MacKay, John (Wallsend)
Swingler, S. T.


Grossman, R. H. S.
McLeavy, Frank
Sylvester, G. O.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Mahon, Simon
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Deer, G.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thornton, E.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Timmons, J.


Diamond, John
Mason, Roy
Tomney, F.


Dodds, N. N.
Mellish, R. J.
Usborne, H. C.


Donnelly, D. L.
Mikardo, Ian
Viant, S. P.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Mitchison, G. R.
Watkins, T. E.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Monslow, W.
Weitzman, D.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Moody, A. S.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Morrison, Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)
West, D. G.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mort, D. L.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Finch, H. J.
Moss, R.
White, Mrs. Elrene (E. Flint)


Fletcher, Eric
Moyle, A.
Wigg, George


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mulley, F. W.
Willey, Frederick


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Williams, David (Neath)


Gibson, C. W.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Greenwood, Anthony
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Oswald, T.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Grey, C. F.
Owen, W. J.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Paget, R. T.
Woof, R. E.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Hale, Leslie
Palmer, A. M. F.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Zilliacus, K.


Hannan, W.
Parker, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Parkin, B. T.
Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Rogers.


Hastings, S.
Paton, John

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

THE WEST INDIES (GIFT OF MACE)

4.20 p.m.

The Secretary of State to the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented, on behalf of this House, a Mace to the House of Representatives of the West Indies, and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.
A great and welcome political development took place in the British West Indies in January of this year, when no fewer than ten territories joined their destinies in federating into the West Indies. This brings into being a new legislature in the Commonwealth. As hon. Members will know, Her Royal Highness Princess Margaret has graciously agreed to inaugurate the new legislature in Port-of-Spain on 22nd April next. Her Majesty's Government will be represented by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, and Parliament will be represented by a delegation of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, including a noble Lord and hon. Members from both sides of this House.
It is proposed, if the Committee passes this Motion, that the House of Commons might mark this historic event in appropriate fashion by the gift of a Mace to the new House of Representatives, the lower, elected, House of the legislature of the West Indies. The gift will be a token of the good will of the House of Commons and of the people of the United Kingdom, to the legislature of the West Indies and to all its peoples, and it will bear our best wishes for their future happiness and prosperity.
When the proposal to make this gift was first made known to the House on 3rd December last, in reply to a Question by the right hon Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), the House gave it their general approval. The work was then put in hand. The designer, Mr. A. G.

Styles, has been selected by means of a limited competition organised for the purpose by the Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths, and the work is being executed by Messrs. Garrard and Company Limited. The Mace of the House of Commons has been taken as a basis of the design, which will embody the arms of the West Indies and motifs distinctive of the territories.
It is expected that the Mace will be available for inspection by hon. Members early in July. It is hoped that the presentation of the Mace to the House of Representatives can take place in October. Suitable arrangements will be made in due course. With these words, short though warmly felt, I commend the Motion to the Committee.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: I rise on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Motion. A custom has grown up in recent years whereby, when a new legislature is opened in the Commonwealth, or when a former dependent territory achieves its independence, this House of Commons presents to the legislature in question a Mace, or sometimes a Speaker's Chair, or some other object associated with our proceedings here. This is an admirable and significant development. It is certainly not an empty gesture, nor even merely a sign of good will although, of course, there is plenty of that.
It is rather a symbol of the unity of the Commonwealth and of the way in which that unity is rooted in Parliamentary democracy, for the Mace, in particular, is a symbol of the authority of Parliament and of Mr. Speaker. In this case, it is not a matter of independence as yet. We are presenting this Mace to the new legislature of the Federation, but federation, although not identical with self-government, is an essential step towards it. Indeed, one of the major arguments for federation was that it made self-government possible.
We hope that full self-government will soon follow and we send this Mace with our best wishes for the success of the Federation in speedy advance to independence and best wishes, also, for the happiness and prosperity of the people of the West Indies.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: On behalf of hon. Members on the back benches on


both sides of the House, I wish to say how thrilled and excited we are about the fruition of so much endeavour and hard work by so many people in the past in reaching this goal. We owe thanks to the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones), who started it all, and to my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary, who has completed it all, and perhaps most of all, to those in the West Indies, political Ministers and leaders of opinion throughout the British Caribbean who, at the sacrifice of many local interests, in their own islands, have all come together in this not very easy task to reach a common goal. To all of us and to them this happy culmination must be a matter of very great rejoicing.
We here who love those beautiful islands and their peoples are glad to send this Mace as a symbol of the Parliamentary system of government which they learned from us and which they are working so well. We congratulate them upon the really remarkable success they have achieved in building up a multi-racial community which really works and which is a model for the whole world. We are delighted to see them joining in this Federation which, we hope, will be as successful from the economic point of view as from the political point of view.

Mr. J. Grimond: May I also support the Motion and ask, on behalf of the Liberal Party, to be associated with what has been said, particularly in sending best wishes to the people of the West Indies for their future?

Mr. Charles Royle: As a back bencher, may I be permitted to support the Motion? I have a very deep affection for the West Indies, because, like the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher), I have had the privilege of going there. In no other part of the British Commonwealth is there greater loyalty to the Mother Country than among the peoples of the islands of the British Caribbean. I am grateful to the Lord Privy Seal for his proposal that a Mace, an emblem of Parliamentary authority, shall be presented to the West Indies. I know full well how deeply it will be appreciated by the people themselves.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

MAINTENANCE ORDERS BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment to Amendment [12th March] proposed on Consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee):—

Clause 6.—(POWERS OF COURTS TO MAKE ORDERS ATTACHING THE EARNINGS OF PERSONS WHOSE PAYMENTS UNDER MAINTENANCE ORDERS ARE IN ARREAR.)

Which Amendment was, in page 6. line 43, at end insert:
(2) The court shall not make an attachment of earnings order if the defendant satisfies the court that the failure to make payment in accordance with the maintenance order in question was not due to his wilful refusal or culpable neglect.

And the Amendment to the proposed Amendment was, in line1, leave out "the defendant satisfies" and insert "it appears to".

Question again proposed, That "the defendant satisfies" stand part of the proposed Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Clause 7.—(POWERS OF COURTS TO MAKE ATTACHMENT OF EARNINGS ORDERS IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER OTHER ACTS.)

4.30 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): I beg to move, in page 8, line 25, after "unpaid", to insert:
then, subject to subsection (2) of that section".
This Amendment is consequential to the main Government Amendment to page 6, line 43, inserting the new subsection, which has already been added to the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9.—(VARIATION AND DISCHARGE ETC. OF ATTACHMENT OF EARNINGS ORDERS.)

Mr. Renton: I beg to move, in page 9, line 15, to leave out "as aforesaid" and to insert:
under Part I of this Act.
This is a small drafting Amendment which arises because, in Committee, a


new paragraph (c) was inserted in what is now Clause 9 (2). The words "as aforesaid" in paragraph (d) are now so far removed from the reference to Part I of the Act in paragraph (b), to which they hark back, that it is desirable now to substitute a direct reference.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12.—(POWERS OF COURTS TO DETERMINE WHETHER PAYMENTS ARE EARNINGS.)

Mr. Renton: I beg to move, in page 12, line 15, to leave out from the second "of" to "determine" in line 16 and to insert:
the person in whose favour the order was made.
The Amendment arises in this way. Under Clause 17 (2), a person entitled to receive payments under the related maintenance order includes any person entitled to receive payments either directly or through another person or for transmission to another person. It follows that, as things stand in the Bill at present, those words would include the clerk of a magistrates' court through whom payments are made under the existing law. In Clause 12, however, we are dealing with people who should have the right to make an application to the court for a determination by the court of what may or may not be included in the word "earnings".
It is obviously right that the husband or the wife, or, indeed, the employer if he is in doubt, which will not be often, should have a right to make the application, but it is not right that the clerk of the court should come into such proceedings. If he were to do so, he would find himself in the embarrassing position of advising the court on a point of law if the court should require his advice. We should not contemplate circumstances in which the clerk could possibly be a party to the application, as he could be if we did not make the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Renton: I beg to move, in page 12, line 42, to leave out "a later" and to insert "an earlier".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that this Amendment and the next one, in line 43, go together.

Mr. Renton: Yes. I think that would be convenient. The Amendment in

line 43, to leave out "an earlier" and to insert "a later" is the converse of the one I have moved, in line 42.
I moved these two Amendments in Committee, as hon. Members will recollect, but I withdrew them in order to reconsider the position. I have now done that. Both Amendments are concerned solely with the order in which amounts due under a maintenance order are to be discharged by payments received under an attachment of earnings order. We had a certain amount of misunderstanding in Committee about whether this affected the position of different maintenance orders or different attachment of earnings orders. In fact, it does neither. The particular subsection deals solely with different payments under the same maintenance order. It is a matter of the order in which those payments should be discharged, whether the later should be discharged before the earlier or the earlier be discharged before the later.
The Bill at present provides that payments shall discharge the sums due under the maintenance order in the reverse order to that in which they became due—that current payments shall be discharged before arrears. We feel that we should change that order of priorities, for reasons which I shall give. The two Amendments would have that result.
First, it has been represented to us by the Justices' Clerks' Society that the present order of priorities in the Bill is the reverse of that normally followed by clerks of magistrates' courts in dealing with maintenance payments under existing procedures. I should point out that the present practice is based on judgments of the Divisional Court in 1953, the leading case being R. v. Miskin Lower Justices, ex parte Young. For reasons of procedural consistency, we wish to follow what is already done in the magistrates' courts.
There is another reason, which the House may regard as even more important. This is all connected with the making of Income Tax deductions, which, in certain circumstances, the husband might sometimes have to do. Under the present provisions in the Bill, nearly every payment received by way of attachment, except where the maintenance order is a small maintenance order, will have to be allocated partly towards current payments


and partly towards arrears. So we may have a situation where there are different payments arising in different financial years, in which there is sometimes a different standard rate of Income Tax. We are advised that it would cause tremendous confusion if there were the likelihood of older payments not being paid off first so to speak, to clear the way for the calculations on the more recent payments.
Having considered the matter very carefully, we feel that it is right that the earlier payments should be discharged first. It may, in any event, be quite a confusing situation where there are a number of outstanding payments, some related to different financial years and relating to different standard rates of Income Tax; but it would become even more confusing if we did not have the earlier payments discharged first.

Mr. Frederick Lee: In principle, we understand and agree with what the hon. and learned Gentleman said, but how does one define which arrears are being paid first? Before a wife can obtain such an order it is necessary that arrears shall have accumulated. Precisely what is the hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting? Let us suppose that a husband has paid off certain arrears as, I take it, the present Amendment would ensure. Would it then be competent for the court to decide that those arrears having been paid off the court could actually discharge the order itself? In what way would the machinery work? For instance, current payments being made following the attachment order, how would the court determine that they were, in fact, payments of arrears which had accumulated from a certain date? I am not in any way opposing the suggestion made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, but for the guidance of the court I think it might be well if the Government gave us a little further enlightenment.

Mr. Renton: Of course, nothing which I say here will be taken as guidance to the courts, because proceedings in Parliament must not be used for the interpretation of Statutes.
I think the situation is a little simpler than the hon. Gentleman has put it. He may have confused two stages. The first stage is where there are arrears arising under the maintenance order itself. There

must be at least four weeks of those arrears before an attachment of earnings order can be made at all. The position which I attempted to describe earlier does not arise until after the attachment of earnings order has been made.
Let us assume that up to a certain date all the payments are paid currently and all is well. Then, there may be a series of payments due and a period of failure to pay. Then, the husband may decide to resume payment again. The question is whether, when he resumes payment, he shall be deemed to be discharging the payments which were last due or the payments which were first due.
The Bill at present says that it shall be the payments which were last due, but we are advising the House that it would be better to say that the husband should be deemed to discharge first the payments which were first due and that that will lead to the least confusion.

Mr. Julius Silverman: There is still some confusion. We are considering payments by an attachment order to discharge arrears which have accumulated not merely while the order is in force, but formerly. Is that not clear from subsection (2), which states:
so as to discharge first any sums for the time being due and unpaid under the related maintenance order"?
Therefore, we are dealing not merely with arrears which have accumulated while the order was in force, but arrears which have accumulated beforehand.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: It may be years before.

Mr. J. Silverman: Yes. That seems to be quite clear from subsection (2), but that was not the impression given by the Joint Under-Secretary.
As I understand it, when courts deal with maintenance orders and there are arrears and an order is made in respect of them, it is the procedure to say that there shall be a total payment—that is to say, the current payments shall be met and, in addition, there shall be a certain amount towards arrears. Suppose that arrears have accumulated against a man who must make a weekly payment of £3. The court may direct him to pay £3 10s. a week, comprising £3 for the current payment and 10s. for arrears. That, I understand, is the existing practice concerning maintenance orders.
Is that practice being altered? Are we now saying that when an attachment order comes into operation we do not use it to pay the current payments until the arrears have been discharged? If so, that is an entirely new procedure and we ought to be told about it. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will clear up this matter.

Mr. S. Silverman: My own feeling about the Amendment depends on whether my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. J. Silverman) is right or wrong in saying that the power would apply—indirectly, possibly, but nevertheless applying—to the arrears under the original maintenance order made by the court. If the Joint Under-Secretary is right in saying that it applies only to arrears after the order under the Bill—the charging order, as it were—had been made, I still would not like it very much, but I would not feel that the points involved were important enough to argue or to raise serious objection against. If, however, my hon. Friend is right in saying that under the Amendment the arrears affected are any arrears under the principal order, no matter when made, I consider that the Amendment is ill-advised. In many of these cases, the arrears may go back many years. Sometimes, they drag on for a long time.
4.45 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary appreciates, I am sure, that not all the hard cases with which the Bill is intended to deal are on the one side. There are some hard cases the other way—cases, for instance, of ill-conceived, hasty wartime marriages, in which there has never been any matrimonial home, where there are no children and where neither party intends to resume cohabitation in the full matrimonial sense, but where, nevertheless, under the existing law, the man remains responsible for the maintenance of his wife throughout his life.
In many of those cases, a sense of great injustice, rightly or wrongly, is engendered in the mind of the man, who feels that he is being held up to ransom for no real social purpose. In those cases there have been, as everybody knows, obstinate men who have been willing to suffer any kind of penalty rather than pay. I am not defending the attitude; I am only saying that it is a social problem which is known to many of us

who have had anything to do with these matters.
What would be the position if the Amendment is carried? We are applying now a totally new procedure. The Bill is intended to do something that we have never thought it right to do before, and I do not quarrel with that. It would be out of order to quarrel with it, even if I wanted to, at this stage of our proceedings. I should not, however, like to see it applied to arrears which were accumulated in other circumstances many years ago so as to keep the man under continual pressure in this way for matters which both sides may long ago have dispensed with.
There is no discretion under the Amendment. As soon as the charging order is made and payments begin to be collected from the employer, if the Amendment is carried they must, if my hon. Friend is right, be allocated to the earliest arrears under the principal order, no matter under what circumstances those arrears were incurred and no matter how long ago. I feel sure that that would not be a wise thing to do. I agree that it is an unimportant matter in the interpretation of the Amendment given by the Joint Under-Secretary, but if my hon. Friend is right—and I am inclined to think that he is—we should think carefully and long before making the Amendment that the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes.

Mr. Renton: I do not think there is any great difference between us, and I hope that if I may give a yet further explanation I can assure both the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. J. Silverman) and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). There must first be arrears under a maintenance order before an attachment of earnings order can be made by the court. When the court makes an order for payment by means of attachment of earnings, it must consider the size of the arrears, the extent to which they should be wiped out weekly in future, and the amount that the defendant should pay each week thereafter to maintain his future weekly payments. It will be a matter for the discretion of the court, and there are various factors—

Mr. J. Silverman: Surely, that is not correct. If the Amendment is carried,


will not the position be that the court does not decide what payment is made towards the weekly or current order until the arrears have been discharged? The court simply decides upon a weekly payment which has nothing whatever to do with the current order until all the arrears have been discharged.

Mr. Renton: No. At the moment, the court has power to make an order for the discharge of arrears. It must be remembered that we are dealing not only with maintenance orders, but with affiliation orders, and so on. The court has power to make orders for current payments as well. All that we are doing in the Bill is to attach a new enforcement remedy called the attachment of earnings. That enforcement remedy is one which takes into account not only the need to maintain payments in future but also the need to wipe out arrears. However, we are concerned in Clause 13 only with the question of the failure to maintain payments after an attachment of earnings order has been made.

Mr. Lee: Mr. Lee rose—

Mr. Renton: May I just deploy this point? The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have an opportunity to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
We are concerned here with the order in which payments due are to be wiped out by payment under an attachment of earnings order.

Mr. J. Silverman: Under the maintenance order.

Mr. Renton: Yes. There has to be a maintenance order first before there can be an attachment of earnings order. That is a point which the hon. Gentleman does not seem to have clearly in mind. We are dealing with the payments due after an attachment of earnings order has been made. We say that the earlier payments should be discharged first and the later payments should be discharged later. That is the simplest way to avoid the confusion which might arise over Income Tax deductions. We are comforted by the fact that we are advised by the Justices' Clerks' Society that that is the order followed in the case of maintenance order payments at the moment.
May I introduce another reason for following that procedure. As the hon.

Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) will remember very well, it was decided in Clayton's case that this should be the order for the discharge of debts, and in various contexts in the law it has been the order in which debts are deemed to have been discharged for many years past. We think that that is the right system to follow.

Mr. Lee: The hon. and learned Gentleman has spoken about people becoming further in arrears after an attachment order has been made. How does a person get into arrears after an attachment order has been made? I take it that once the attachment order has been made the money will be deducted from wages. Under those circumstances, how does the hon. Gentleman envisage a person getting further into arrears?

Mr. Renton: The court has a discretion with regard to arrears under a maintenance order, just as it has in the making of an attachment order when there are arrears under a maintenance order. That will be a matter for the discretion of the court. Candidly, I do not think that that affects the issue which arises on this Amendment.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: With respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, what is puzzling hon. Gentlemen on this side is how arrears accumulate during the running of an attachment of order.

Mr. Renton: They accumulate through the simple process of the defendant failing to pay the full amount specified in the order.

Mr. Henry Usborne: I certainly do not understand how a defendant can fail to maintain when he does not have to make the payments himself. The whole purpose of the attachment order is to enable the employer to attach the income. Therefore, the defendant does not even touch it.

Mr. Renton: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman, who was not present during the Committee stage of the Bill, although most of the hon. Members who have spoken on this Amendment, except the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, were present. Those of us who were there have a language of our own about


this matter, which is most complicated. In spite of the fact that it is the employer who has the obligation to maintain the payments for the employee, the employer, on the employee's behalf, can fall into arrears through the employee being, for example, put on short time work or being out of employment for a short time.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Renton: I beg to move, in page 12, line 43, to leave out "an earlier" and insert "a later".
We have discussed this Amendment with the previous Amendment. It is consequential.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16.—(SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO MAGISTRATES' COURTS.)

Mr. Renton: I beg to move, in page 15, line 44, at the end to insert:
(5) In subsection (3) of section fifty-two of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952 (which provides for the clerk through whom payments under a magistrates' court order are required to be made to proceed in his own name for the recovery of arrears under the order) for the words "Where an order under subsection (1) of this section requires the payments to be made weekly" there shall be substituted the words "Where periodical payments under an order of any court are required to be paid to or through the clerk of a magistrates' court"; and in subsection (4) of that section (which provides that nothing in that section shall affect any right of a person to proceed in his own name for the recovery of sums payable on his behalf under any order under subsection (1) of that section) for the words "any order under subsection (1) of this section" there shall be substituted the words "an order Of any court
This proposal deals with a rather technical point. It arises in this way. Section 52 (3) of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, requires the clerk of a magistrates' court to whom payments are made under a maintenance order to proceed in his own name for the recovery of the arrears if the wife asks him to do so and if he does not think that it is unreasonable to do so. I mentioned on a previous Amendment that that is the practice. It is desirable for the purposes of the Bill, which aims at reciprocality of enforcement procedures, that this requirement should apply equally to High Court and county court orders registered in a magistrates' court under Part I of the Bill.
As Section 52 is at the moment drafted in terms of orders for weekly payments

it could frequently not apply to High Court maintenance orders, which are generally for monthly payments. Therefore, the Amendment seeks to remove the limitation in Section 52 of the 1952 Act to orders for weekly payments, and to make it explicit that the subsection in that section applies to the orders of any court which are payable through the clerk of a magistrates' court. Therefore, it dovetails that existing procedure with the procedure that we are contemplating under the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. John Parker: I beg to move, in page 15, line 44, at end to insert:
(5) Section seventy-five of the Magistrates Courts Act, 1952. shall be amended by the addition of the following words at the end of the section "but subject to any order which may be made under the next succeeding section the arrears due at the date on which the person is committed to custody shall continue to be due and payable notwithstanding the person has been committed to custody and has remained in custody for the whole of the period for which he was committed".
In view of the undertaking given by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot), I do not propose to develop the argument with regard to this matter at great length.
Many of us feel strongly that a subsection of this kind ought to be inserted in the Bill so as to bring the practice of magistrates' courts into line with that of other courts, particularly in view of the Amendment which was accepted in principle earlier about the possibility of imprisonment being limited to six weeks. Our point is that the imprisonment should not wipe out the obligation to pay in magistrates' courts. We think that there is a strong case for not wiping out the obligation to pay.
If a provision of this kind is included in the Bill, a great many people would not get to the state where it is necessary to order payment to be made under the Bill. We hope, therefore, that the inclusion of the subsection will be possible in another place if it is not possible for the Government to accept it in its present form.

Mr. Charles Royle: I beg to second the Amendment.
I should like to thank the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the assurances that


he gave on Second Reading. I should like briefly to stress the necessity for the Amendment. Frankly, my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) and myself are using this opportunity, which may not arise again for a long time, to ask the House to consider something of this nature.
5.0 p.m.
I want to make it clear that the main aim of the Amendment is to prevent men from being sent to prison. The Home Secretary and his predecessors have insisted constantly that in these days when many people are serving short-term sentences, when there are overcrowded cells and so on, it is important not to send people to prison if possible. I am confident that this Amendment would have that result.
In the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, justices were empowered to suspend committal orders. Under the Act they can commit a man to prison and suspend the committal order as long as maintenance payments are met. Experience shows that this line of approach has ensured the payment of maintenance orders. Everyone concerned with this work knows that a prison sentence hanging over a man's head has the desired effect. I believe, therefore, that if the law is brought up to date and magistrates' courts can do exactly the same as the higher courts in these matters, men will pay rather than go to jail. On the other hand, I believe that many today are prepared to take the risk of being committed to prison because this will wipe out the arrears.
So I am confident that if this Amendment is accepted it will prevent men going to prison in future. I will go even one step further and say that if the Bill is amended in this way the operation of attachment will not be necessary in many cases. I would not be associated with this proposal if I did not feel that as a result fewer people would go to prison. I hope, therefore, that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to tell us that the Amendment will be accepted by the Government.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: I rise to support this Amendment. I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a good chance that, by accepting it, we shall reduce the number of men going to prison. As the raw

stands, there are many circumstances in which it is a good bargain for a man to serve a prison sentence of six weeks if thereby he can wipe out as much as £120.
Recently, a case was brought to my notice in which there were arrears of £120 for the maintenance of children. The court gave the man concerned a six weeks' sentence. That may be unpleasant for him, but at the end of that time, having been kept at the expense of the community, he comes out with the debt expunged. I suggest that from the point of view of the deserted wife or the unmarried mother, in whose favour an affiliation order has been made, it is an advantage that the debt should remain and that the man should be liable to discharge it when he leaves prison.
The present system is unfair to the women concerned, and it puts an unfair temptation in the way of the weaker sex by allowing men to think that by serving a short sentence in prison they discharge their debt to the women concerned at the expense of the community.

Mr. Victor Yates: I applaud the sentiments of my hon. Friends who have spoken in support of the Amendment, since their principal motive is to keep men out of prison. In that respect, I am anxious to consider carefully any Amendment which would have such an effect, but when we discussed this in Committee all the arguments were against such an Amendment, except those of my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker), who moved a similar Amendment then. So I want to ask one or two questions about the meaning of this Amendment.
It would be unfortunate if we were to embark upon a policy that would be responsible for continuing to put men in prison. My hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) and I expressed some anxiety about this upstairs. My hon. Friends say that if the Amendment were accepted it would prevent men from being sent to prison. I have not a magistrate's experience, but if the object of the Bill is to attach wages, surely that is the principle which will keep men out of prison, and if magistrates have the right to determine that wages shall be attached, the question of imprisonment does not arise. If there were a lot of people roaming the country wilfully refusing to recognise their obligations, although having the


money to do so, we would have to consider the position seriously. As far as I can see, however, the majority of people who might be in this position would not have a regular job and therefore would have no means of payment.
I agree that this principle is accepted for Scotland, but in England we have not accepted the principle of the arrestment of income for all civil debts. There is also a difference in the length of prison sentences between Scotland and England. So I want to know what would be the term of imprisonment for, say, contempt of court for not complying with a maintenance order because, if the man concerned has an income or wages, those wages or that income could be arrested and the question of imprisonment would not arise.
In the Report of the Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders, which was published by the Home Office in 1957, there is a reference to Scotland and to the Scottish system. The Report says:
Imprisonment I can still be imposed if a husband fails to pay maintenance and the court is satisfied that the failure is wilful in the sense that the man has the means to pay but has not paid. Imprisonment does not, however, extinguish the debt, and a man may be committed in respect of the same debt at intervals of not less than six months.
I take it that a prisoner in Scotland can be imprisoned over and over again. Would that sort of construction be placed on an Amendment of this kind?
The Report also states:
We have had inquiries made to find out how many of those men now committed to prison in this country for failure to make maintenance payments might be kept out of prison by a system of attachment of wages.
There is an interesting appendix attached to the Report giving information obtained from questionnaires sent to the governors of Brixton, Leicester, Preston and Swansea prisons in respect of prisoners committed to their prisons during the two months beginning 16th July, 1956, for nonpayment of bastardy arrears, wife maintenance and children's maintenance. These people come into various categories, but only one prefers prison to making the payment. Who are these people who are said to prefer prison to making the payments?

Mrs. L. Jeger: They are all the men who say that they would rather go to prison than give the "so-and-so" a penny.

Mr. Yates: There is power in the Bill to arrest wages, and so there is no need for a man to go to prison. I cannot see that in many cases men will prefer to go to prison to attachment of wages.
In Committee, I mentioned a case with which I was connected. I took up the case of a man who had been to prison five times. On the last occasion when he appeared before the court, I wrote to the court asking what was the use of sending the man to prison again when his income was too low to make the payments. On that occasion, the court decided to reconsider the matter and did not send him to prison.
If the Minister has evidence about a large number of cases, what kind of cases are they, and will terms of imprisonment he altered from the present terms if, after a man has been to prison, he is still liable for the debt? I cannot see how those men with whom I have come into contact who have been to prison for heavy arrears, but who have only a small income, will be able to pay the arrears. They will still have to go back to prison. If that is to be avoided by regulations, I shall be satisfied. I am convinced that by its very nature the Bill will keep a large number of men from going to prison by the use of powers to arrest wages. If the wages are not arrested, some safeguard is needed so that we do not have a cat-and-mouse game of a man going in and out of prison, a process which savours of several doses of punishment for the one crime.

Mr. George Isaacs: I do not know what the attitude of the Government will be, or whether I am pushing at an open door.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): For the enlightenment of the House, I intervene to say that we have already given an undertaking that this matter will be fully covered by an examination which we are to make before the Bill goes to another place. The contribution of the right hon. Gentleman and those of his hon. Friends will simply aid us in the examination which we are to make. The right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that he is pushing at an open door, but we shall be enlightened by his observations.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Isaacs: Those remarks may clear up the doubts of my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates).
I am perfectly sure that committing an offender to prison but suspending the sentence pending the continuation of payments has been of great value and has kept many men out of prison. However, there are occasions on which the Bill will not help. In the area which I have been privileged to serve for many years, there are many men who are employed as jobbing gardeners or as window cleaners, or in going round the streets selling logs. They have no regular employment, and it would be impossible to attach their wages. I know of many cases where the man flatly refuses to pay anything towards the maintenance of a wife and children and who will calmly say that Public Assistance should look after wives and children. It is no good sending those men to prison, because they look upon prison as a nice holiday; a prison sentence does not worry them. That is the only comment I have to make, if I am pushing at an open door, and I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary can remove some of the apprehensions of my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood.

Mr. Renton: I should make it clear in support of my right hon. Friend that earlier I gave an undertaking, which is to be found in c. 567 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 12th March, that after completion of our discussions with judicial and other bodies, which have to take place, we will put down for consideration in another place Amendments to cover the points which have been made.
The Amendment assimilates magistrates' court procedure to that which already prevails in the High Court and county court, the effect being that committal to prison does not wipe out arrears. An earlier Amendment was to the effect that the maximum period of imprisonment in respect of magistrates' courts committals should be the same as in the High Court and county court, namely, six weeks. That answers the first part of what the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) had to say.
I wish to extend the undertaking which has already been given. First, we are grateful for the views which have been put before the House today, as well as

for those expressed in Committee, and we shall consider them very carefully in the discussions which are still taking place and in the framing of suitable Amendments to put down in another place. We have specially in mind the point raised by the hon. Member for Ladywood as to the possibility of a man going to prison several times in respect of the same debt, and the danger of our playing a cat-and-mouse game with him. We want to avoid that situation if possible.
As I tried to make clear on several occasions in Committee, all the procedures with which we are dealing, and on top of which we are imposing the procedure of Part II of the Bill, are most complicated. When we considered these three points we found them unexpectedly difficult, but we have not allowed that fact to deter us. We are determined to try to find an answer to the three problems. With that further statement, I hope that the House will realise that our intentions are good and that we shall do all that we possibly can. In any event, we are bound by our undertakings.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: It would be discourteous if I did not thank the hon. and learned Member for what he has just said, and also for the assurance which he gave us upon a previous occasion. It has certainly gone a long way to provide what I want to see incorporated in the Bill, and I hope that it will have allayed the doubts expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates). For some time many of us have resented the situation to which my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. L. Jeger) referred, in which it is possible for a man to run up a tremendous bill for arrears and then wipe it off by going to prison for a comparatively short period. That is unfair to the women and children concerned, and it is a wholly unwarranted charge upon public funds.
It means the existence of a positive incentive to people to go to prison instead of the disincentive which the Bill aims to provide. I am glad that the persistence of my hon. Friends has been rewarded, and I hope that the review which the hon. and learned Gentleman will give to the matter will produce a satisfactory result in another place.

Mr. Niall MacDermot: I should be grateful for an assurance that there is no intention to resile from the undertaking given on the last occasion by the words which the Home Secretary used just now, namely, that the matter would be examined. I understand from what the hon. and learned Gentleman has just said that it is definitely intended to put down Amendments covering this point when the procedural difficulties had been overcome and the Government are satisfied as to the proper form that such Amendments should take.
As for the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) about preventing a person being sent to prison twice for the same debt, I would draw the attention of the Minister to the very simple rule which covers this point and which is already part of the county court rules. At present, under the judgment summons procedures—under the Debtors Act—where a person is committed to prison by a county court judge the rules provide that he cannot be committed a second time in respect of the same debt. All that is required in order to cover my hon. Friend's point is for a similar rule to be made for the magistrates' courts, or for the substance of the rule to be incorporated in the Minister's Amendment in the House of Lords.
The Amendment goes a good way towards removing one of the anachronisms which still exists in this branch of the law. In the old days, it used to be common law that when a man was imprisoned for debt the imprisonment wiped out the arrears. The reason for that was explained in the picturesque language of an old case as being that as the creditor had had the highest satisfaction known to the law, namely, the satisfaction of having the debtor imprisoned, and he could no longer avail himself of any remedy of the court. That is a most old-fashioned approach to imprisonment. In these days we do not imprison people for those purposes. If we use imprisonment at all in this respect nowadays it is as a last resort, in order to enforce payment.
The Amendment would bring the procedure in magistrates' courts into line with that in the High Court and county courts in respect of maintenance orders, where it is used solely as a method of

enforcement, and in no way as a satisfaction of the debt.

Mr. Parker: In view of the undertaking given by the hon. and learned Member, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17.—(INTERPRETATION, ETC.)

Mr. Renton: I beg to move, in page 16, line 20, at the end to insert:
or payable under a contract of service)".
This Amendment is designed to meet the criticism put forward by the Opposition in Committee, when they moved an Amendment to bring into the definition of the word "earnings" any sums payable by way of remuneration under a contract of service. The effect of the Amendment is to ensure that any fee, bonus, commission, overtime payment or other emolument is included in the definition not only if it is payable in relation to wages or salary, but also if it is payable under a contract of service. In Committee, I said that, strictly speaking, no such addition was necessary, and that is still the position. Nevertheless, I am prepared to concede that it would be useful to insert the words for emphasis and clarity.

Mr. Greenwood: I thank the hon. and learned Member for what he has said. We discussed this matter in Committee, when various views were expressed, and when the hon. and learned Member was not quite as forthcoming as he is now. It is for that reason that we are specially grateful to him for the concession that he has announced.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Renton: I beg to move, in page 16, line 34, to leave out "or through".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): With this Amendment we can take the following one, in page 16, line 35, leave out "officer or agent".

Mr. Renton: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. We are now dealing with the definition Clause and, in particular, the definition of "excepted sums". As the Bill reads at present, among those sums we include,
sums payable by or through any public department, officer or agent of the government of any territory outside the United Kingdom or of Northern Ireland.


When we discussed this matter in Committee it became abundantly clear that the Bill as originally drafted was too widely drawn, and might mean that agents of a foreign country who were stationed in London, and possibly even British companies, might find themselves freed from the obligations under the Bill in respect of employers and employees in this country. That was obviously going too far. We now have in mind that there should be an exemption in respect of the Governments of any territory outside the United Kingdom or of Northern Ireland, and we do not want to find that we are enacting a nullity by placing an obligation upon people who would in any way have diplomatic status.
The Amendments seek to leave out the words "or through", and "officer or agent", and if hon. Members will be good enough to read the Clause without those words they will find that the meaning is very much narrower, and will be confined, broadly, to a reasonable exception. We have considered the matter very carefully in the light of the discussion which took place in Committee, and I hope that the omission of those words will correspond to the broadly expressed opinions there.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Parker: I should like to thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for having met the point of view put forward in Committee. This rules out the major objection which was raised upstairs, the possibility that a clerk employed by a travel agency or a nationalised shipping company, though a British subject, might otherwise escape his obligations.

Mr. David Jones: As far as I can see, the words which the hon. and learned Gentleman now proposes to leave out meet the point of view expressed in Committee. The fact that he has had second thoughts on his part so near to the first thoughts that we had when we discussed the matter upstairs enables me to forgive the hon. and learned Gentleman for the speech which he made in Committee, in which he sought to prove that all the doubts which we were casting on the drafting were quite unnecessary, and, indeed, that the Bill as originally drafted was sufficiently narrow to meet the purpose.
As I said in Committee, if the Bill is to prove successful at all, it must appear,

at any rate, to treat everybody coming under it alike. To argue, as the hon. and learned Gentleman did upstairs, that it was possible for an agent of a Colonial Government to return to this country after a period of service abroad and find himself in the difficulties which the Bill seeks to overcome, and then, by the insertion of the word "agent", be able to avoid his obligations, seemed to me to defeat the purpose of the Bill altogether. However, I am very grateful that he and his right hon. Friend have had second thoughts about this matter, and we are charitable enough to forgive him for the hard things he said in Committee.

Mr. Renton: If the hon. Gentleman will turn to column 296 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings, he will find that his comment on what I said upstairs is quite inappropriate. May I repeat what I then said? I said:
I certainly agree to think again about this. I felt great difficulty about the matter myself, as the Committee may have judged, but I am terribly anxious that we should not mislead ourselves into making a provision which will have no ultimate sanction. We felt that, rather than do that, it was better to play for safety—
"Later, I said:
I have been invited to look at it again. I think I ought to do so and I give an undertaking to do so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B. 13th February, 1958; c. 296.]

Mr. Charles Pannell: I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will not keep jumping to his feet to explain what he said in Committee. The Government were beaten in one of the Divisions because of this device, and it may very well be that they will be beaten again.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 35, to leave out "officer or agent"—[Mr. Renton.]

Clause 19.—(SHORT TITLE, EXTENT, COMMENCEMENT AND REPEALS.)

Amendment made: In page 18, line 28, leave out from date "to" as "in line 29.—[Mr. Renton.]

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

5.34 p.m.

Mr. Renton: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Although the provisions of the Bill are rather dry and technical, indeed complicated, it deals with an important human


problem—the problem of the woman who cannot get her maintenance, and of the man who drifts into prison because he has failed, more often by incompetence than malice, to keep up regular payment.
The House will recollect that this matter originated in a Private Member's Bill introduced in the last Session by my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Miss Vickers). I should like to thank her for the help which she has given. She can feel justly proud at seeing her idea now mainly accepted by both sides of the House and embodied in a Bill which, I suggest, is workable, and I should like to congratulate her.
The Bill has stimulated lively discussion, and sympathies have been warmly engaged on both sides of the argument. Knowing how strongly individual Members have felt about the matter, it is good to record that our proceedings have been conducted in a friendly spirit. I should like to thank hon. Members on both sides of the argument for their constructive help in improving the Bill. I should especially like to thank the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood), who showed much tact in leading two divergent columns of his own supporters in broadly the same direction, whereas I had to contend only with my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell).
In spite of our arguments, there has I think been broad agreement on two principles—that a man who fails to pay through wilfulness or neglect, and not through misfortune, should be made to pay, and that he should, if possible, be made to pay without being sent to prison. The object of the Bill is to ensure that adequate means of enforcing payment, other than prison, are available. We achieve that object in two ways: by opening the range of High Court enforcement procedures to orders made in magistrates' courts, and, secondly, by adding to the existing methods of enforcement, the new method of attachment of earnings.
In achieving this, we have done our best to avoid unfairness to the man. We have paid heed to the fears expressed by hon. Members about that alarming character the vindictive wife, who brooded like an evil spirit over our proceedings upstairs, and we have barred

the way to merely mischief-making registration in the High Court by providing that orders shall not be registered until four weeks' arrears have accrued.
The Opposition pleaded eloquently for the man who defaults through temporary misfortune, such as sickness and unemployment, and during the Report stage we have inserted certain safeguards. I wonder if I may say a word or two about these, because I know that this is a matter about which hon. Members on both sides of the Committee felt rather strongly, and I think it is right that we should clarify the position which has been reached after a good deal of coming and going and the moving of Amendments.
The Amendment which I moved on Report stage, to which an Opposition Amendment had been proposed when we adjourned our proceedings ten days ago—both the Government Amendment and the Opposition Amendment—had the same object, namely, to preclude the court from making an attachment of earnings order where the husband's default was not due to his wilful refusal or culpable neglect. It was generally agreed in Committee that, in achieving that object, we should not put the onus on the wife to prove wilful refusal or culpable neglect, because it would have been giving her an impossible task, bearing in mind that the facts relating to the case are not in her possession at all, but necessarily in her husband's. That was why in our Amendment we placed the onus clearly on the husband to satisfy the court that the default was not due to his wilful refusal or culpable neglect.
The Opposition suggested that there might be cases—though I think they would be rare cases—where the husband chose neither to appear nor to be represented in court, but where, nevertheless, it might become apparent to the court, from facts already in its possession, that his default was not due to his wilful refusal or culpable neglect.
We came to the conclusion that no injustice would be done to the wife—and I must stress that the burden of proof would not be placed upon her—if we accepted the Opposition Amendment which, as hon. Members will have noticed at the beginning of today's proceedings, we did. I say that there is nothing unfair to the wife in this, and no burden is placed upon her, because under Clause 6 (1) the


wife will have to prove that there are at least four weeks of payment in arrears and that the defendant is a person to whom earnings fall to be paid. The court will then have a discretion to make an attachment of earnings order "if it thinks fit," and those are the operative words. That discretion covers the whole of the application proceedings.
If the defendant does not appear, and does not bring the matter to the notice of the court, the question whether a default was due to his wilful refusal or culpable neglect will not arise unless it appears to the court to arise. The wife is not likely to draw attention to the matter herself. If the defendant wishes to appear, he can raise the matter and therefore bring it in issue; but, of course, if he does appear, it will be for him to show that there was no wilful refusal or culpable neglect. If he does not appear, the court can of its own volition consider the matter.
In those circumstances, we hope that everyone will feel that the solution ultimately reached by the usual and excellent method of give-and-take by both sides is the right one. As was said by my right hon. Friend during the Second Reading debate, there are 3,000 prisoners sleeping three in a cell; and that figure, bad enough in itself, has now risen. Prisoners cost us nearly £6 a head per week, and therefore we ought to try to avoid sending several thousand men a year to prison for defaulting on maintenance orders. We believe that this Bill will considerably reduce that figure. If it does no more than that, it will have been worth while, but we believe also that it will ensure that many wives who cannot now get money to which they are entitled will get it in future, and it will remove the reproach that court orders cannot be made effective because the present methods of enforcement prevent men from earning the means to pay, and relieve them of their accumulated debt.
Opinions about the Bill among employers have been divided. It places a burden, not on a small minority of employers—that would be the wrong way to put it—it places a potential burden on employers in a minute proportion of cases. But, bearing in mind the social benefits to be obtained from this Bill,

we feel that is a burden which, as time goes on, employers will readily accept. We intend to produce a pamphlet explaining the operation of the Bill which should simplify the task of employers. It is with the confidence that between us we have done a good job, and that the Bill will have beneficial results, that I commend it to the House.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. Lee: This is now a far better Bill than it was before the Committee stage discussions. The Joint Under-Secretary was quite right when he said that his hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Miss Vickers) introduced a similar Measure some time ago as a Private Member's Bill. I seem to remember, however, that even before that Bill my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) had similar ideas. I do not think it any secret that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) had something to do with the drafting of a Bill then.
The Under-Secretary congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) on being able to bring conflicting elements within the Opposition into unity on this issue. We have never hidden the fact that we have differing views about certain principles in the Bill. I do not know whether it is a mark of the strength of the Opposition or of the weakness of the Government that on a Bill in connection with which admittedly there are differing views among hon. Members on this side of the House, we were strong enough to defeat the Government on a notable and important Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman could have been a little more gracious and complimented my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale on that achievement also. However, we are charitable in our approach to the Government—goodness knows, they need our charity—and we will proceed to examine what is now contained in the Bill.
It is the fact that the principles contained in this Measure cut across party lines. During the Committee stage discussions on the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Devonport, some searching Amendments were put down by hon. Members opposite which departed entirely from the principles in that Bill. Those same hon. Members were


silent regarding similar issues during the Committee stage discussions on this Bill and I think we understand why. Nevertheless, it is the fact that when the House surveys this Measure hon. Members must keep in mind that there is opposition to some of the proposals in it from hon. Members on both sides of the House. Rebellious souls who air their grievances during discussions on a Private Member's Bill may well consider it necessary not to be quite so rebellious when discussing a similar Government Measure. However, that does not alter the fact that there are differing opinions on some of the salient features of this Bill.
We are discussing a new principle which has never before been accepted in England and Wales. It is right and proper, therefore, that the House should give detailed consideration to such a fundamental change as that enshrined in this Bill. Some of us on this side of the House were persuaded to tone down our opposition by the statement of the Home Secretary during the Second Reading debate that the principle of attachment as applied to maintenance orders would not be widened; or that this Bill would not be used as a lever to widen the scope to include other debts which might be incurred, such as hire-purchase commitments and things of that kind. We attach a lot of importance to that statement, and we shall expect the Government to adhere to what was said by the Home Secretary. It would be quite misleading, however, if I gave the impression that all sections of the community have accepted the principle of attachment. The General Council of the T.U.C. still has reservations about that principle.
We hope that some of the fears which we have voiced during the discussions will proved to be ill-founded. Now that this is to become law, we hope that many of the things we feared will not come about. We believe, and we have said, that men who, rightly or wrongly, consider that they have been ruined by maintenance orders of this type being made against them may refuse to stay in regular work and become casual workers. I could outline to the House instances of that kind.
I am not arguing that the men are right. I am thinking of men who have not had a happy married life and who have felt

that they were wronged. It could be, now that we are attaching maintenance orders to wages, that they would refuse to remain as regular employees. A man might say to his employer, "I have taken a stand on principle. I will not permit you to deduct this money. I choose to disappear and to become a casual worker." That would be a very great tragedy. I hope that the Government will watch very closely the way in which the legislation works, and if they find that kind of thing happening I hope they will not hesitate to say that the legislation needs amendment.
No matter what attitude my hon. Friends have taken on the Bill, none of them has tried to defend the unscrupulous or unworthy person who would rather leave his dependants to be looked after by the State and go along in poverty or negligence. We have been concerned with the man who, even wrongly, may take up an attitude which none of us would desire. We have tried to argue that the Government should ensure that that kind of thing does not happen.
When the Bill of the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport was before us we took exception to the provision that a prerequisite was to be that a man should be an employee. Before an attachment order could be made, the man must be in receipt of wages or salary. My hon. Friends argued that this was class legislation and that people who were not employees, but whose actions could be detrimental to their families, would not come under it as long as that condition remained. The Government have tried to broaden the matter out in the Bill. In doing so, they have complicated the Bill very much. I do not complain that they have made a genuine effort to meet us but, despite the Amendments which the Government have accepted to Clause 17, the interpretation Clause—I thank the Under-Secretary of State for the Amendments which he has just moved on the Report stage—we still feel there is a lack of clarity about the Clause.
We discussed emoluments, earnings and the like in Committee and pointed out that flats, houses, cars, etc., were now being given to certain types of employee, in some cases directors, in lieu of cash. The legislation which we are discussing does not take that kind of thing into account. The interpretation Clause is


very vague. The Under-Secretary of State said that examination of the matter was being pursued. We are not entirely satisfied with the Clause as it is now drawn.
The principal Clause dealing with attachment is Clause 6, on which we had a long and detailed discussion in Committee. We suggested that to give a wife an opportunity to get an attachment order after arrears of four weekly payments was going rather near the bone, and that at least eight periods of arrears should accumulate before action can be taken to get an attachment order. I still feel that four weeks is not sufficiently long. The Government have accepted very much of our argument by excluding men in the Merchant Navy from being brought into the Bill, for obvious reasons.
We pointed out that many other types of people besides members of the Merchant Navy were not in a position to meet an attachment order based upon weekly payments. For many weeks on end, hundreds of thousands of workers in certain types of industry draw a minimum wage far below their average, and they do not draw bonus. They may be on day shift instead of night shift. All such points must be considered, because they amount to the kind of consideration which the Government have given to the Merchant Navy.
We discussed the ability of magistrates' courts to discharge committal orders. I do not want to recall the painful chapter for the Government, but they may remember that they could not get a majority in the Lobby against our Amendment, because a good many hon. Members who normally support the Government agreed with us on that occasion, and there was a majority on that issue. In spite of arguments, I still do not understand how a Government who introduce legislation to attach orders to wages can be reconciled to keeping men in prison at this very moment and thereby refusing to allow them to earn wages and have an order attached to them. However much we may differ among ourselves on this Bill, we are unanimous on this side of the House on this point, and we ask the Home Secretary to examine this position again before the Bill goes to another place.
We are still not clear why payments made by the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance are excluded from the

Bill. I should not have thought that the value of money depended upon the source from which it came. It is an amazing admission that if money is paid through a Government agency like the Ministry of Pensions it is, for some reason not explained to us, excluded from the Bill. We have never had any logical explanation of that. Even at this late stage I hope that someone upon the Government Front Bench will tell us, or will give us an assurance, that the matter will be looked at again before the Bill goes to another place.
We have tried to improve the proposals which the Government brought before us. We feel that, because of the acceptance of Amendments moved by my hon. Friends in Committee and on Report, the Measure is now better than when it first appeared before the House. I do not necessarily believe that it is yet as good as we should like it to be. I hope that the Home Secretary will note what my hon. Friends have said during the various stages of our deliberations and see his way clear to amend it even further in another place to correspond with the many constructive and able suggestions put forward by Her Majesty's Opposition.

6.1 p.m.

Miss Joan Vickers: I wish to take the opportunity of the debate on Third Reading to express sincere thanks to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary for bringing the Bill forward.
I wish also to thank the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) for the way in which he has helped with the Bill and the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens), whose speech on Second Reading impressed the House very much.
We also owe a debt of gratitude to the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), who originated the suggestion which led to the establishment of the Commission on Marriage and Divorce, and we are grateful to the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill).
I pay tribute to the sincerity, tenacity and courage of the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) and the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) for sticking to their principles and stating them so clearly in debates


on the Private Member's Bill that I introduced and on this Bill.
I wish to say a word of thanks to the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Not only was he a sponsor of my Private Member's Bill, but he was Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department when this Bill was taken over by the Government. In defence of my Private Member's Bill I should say to the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) that that Bill was not in any way intended as class legislation. Although I realise that the present Bill is a much better one than I could have produced, at the time I introduced my Bill we knew there were other means of taking money from salaried people and those who had private means by garnishee methods. I would not be a party to bringing in legislation which savoured of class legislation.
In debates on this Bill I think that hon. Members on both sides had consideration for women and children. We were very desirous that their security should be made more sure in future. We particularly want to remember women left with small children to bring up. Looking round the Chamber now I do not think very much can be said about "vindictive women". There are 28 women Members of Parliament, but only three are here now, so I think that we can say that this matter is not being put over from the feminist point of view.
This Bill will be beneficial on the question of affiliation orders. I believe I have the agreement of all hon. Members who worked on the Committee when I say that they are very keen to see that women who have had illegitimate children should keep them in their care. I hope that as a result of this Bill the father of the child concerned will have to maintain the child rather than it being adopted or put into the care of the local authority. I believe that the Bill will help local authorities because there will be better contact with parents, and parents will have to help maintain those children.
The Bill will be a deterrent to the sending of men to prison. When a man feels that he cannot get out of his responsibilities, he will consider the matter a second time and many families may be reunited because a man will not be able to leave his responsibilities entirely. I hope that it will be a deterrent to separa-

tion in future. Having made several inquiries in the country, I think that even before it becomes an Act the Bill is having a good effect. I have come across quite a number of magistrates who have put men on probation rather than sending them to prison. In view of what we have heard about the increasing sharing of cells, I think that that will be a good thing. Men have been put on probation because magistrates know that if they do not pay action can be taken when the Bill becomes an Act.
This Bill did another good thing in Committee upstairs. It meant that the quorum was changed from 15 to 12 and we have managed to keep a quorum for Private Members' Bills since. During the Committee stage on the Private Member's Bill and on this Bill hon. Members retained their independence. We did not necessarily obey the Government Whip. Hon. Members voted according to personal opinions although it was a Government Bill.
Several hon. Members have wondered how the Bill will work out. I wish to suggest that perhaps some records might be kept by magistrates of the number of cases that come before them, the number in which orders are made, how they are kept, and, finally, the numbers who have to go to prison. If possible, we should find the cost caused by women and children who still may have to apply for National Assistance. That information would be most helpful to hon. Members on both sides of the House who might still have doubts about how effective the Bill will be.
One often wonders about public opinion in the country. I believe that this Bill has enabled us to sound public opinion. From the chairman of the Royal Commission downwards, many people have changed their opinions. Through the Press we have had an adequate opportunity of learning that opinion. As a result I think that the Bill will have more chance of working satisfactorily. I again thank my right hon. and hon. Friends for their kindness in bringing forward the Bill, which, I hope, will prove a blessing to the whole country.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. Usborne: As an hon. Member who, alas, was not a member of the Standing Committee which considered


this Bill—not through any fault of my own, because I announced my interest and applied to serve on this Committee but was not asked to do so—

Mr. Pannell: What was my hon. Friend's interest?

Mr. Usborne: As hon. Members know, I am associated with the National Marriage Guidance Council which from the start has had a very great interest in the Bill and has done much to support its passage. I should say on behalf of that Council how pleased it will be when the Bill becomes an Act.
There is a small point of criticism I wish to make. Probably it ought to have been made in Committee, but, as I have said, I did not serve on the Committee and this point has been noticed only a few days ago. I believe, nevertheless, that it is an important and relevant matter. I put down a new Clause on Report stage but in its wisdom the Chair did not call it. I do not know why, but I gather it was considered not necessary. I presume, therefore, that somewhere in this Bill this point is taken care of. My criticism is that it is not very clear to some experts, nor to some amateurs like myself, how it is taken care of.
A man having part of his wages attached is working for an industrial company. The company runs into financial difficulties and is on the point of going bankrupt. It is not uncommon for a company in that peculiar sort of situation to fail actually to hand out wages to its employees for a number of weeks or even months. Indeed, such a failure is so common that, in the Companies Act, 1948, it is laid down that if an employee of a company has not received his wages for up to four months, those wages shall be regarded as a preferential debt when the company goes into liquidation. If it is provided that an employee's wages not paid shall be given preferential treatment over other commercial debts of a company, it should, I feel, be equally clear that any increment to be deducted by way of attachment which is, for precisely the same reason, unlikely to be paid over, ought to receive the same preferential treatment.

Mr. J. Silverman: They are still wages.

Mr. Usborne: They are not quite wages, because they should have been deducted from the wages. If the company's secretary or cashier was doing his job, those moneys ought to have been deducted from the wages. On being deducted, they cease at that point of time, being theoretically detached, to be wages and they then really belong to the court to which they should be turned over. However, I will not argue the matter, for I am not a lawyer.
The point is important. It has been brought to my attention by one of the officers of the National Marriage Guidance Council. I should be very pleased if the Joint Under-Secretary would look at the matter again to see whether the point is valid and whether it is covered by the Bill as it stands. If it is not, perhaps matters could be put right in another place.
I repeat my congratulations to the Government and, indeed, to the House as a whole, upon passing on its way into law a Bill which, when it goes on the Statute Book, will be regarded as a very important and valuable reform.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Donald Sumner: I wish to add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers). I saw a good deal of her work when she was, if I may say so, paving the way and providing the inspiration for what has now become this Bill. The House as a whole, the country, and particularly many wives and, despite themselves, many husbands, will have reason to be grateful to her. If I may, I will give one short illustration of what I believe will be the value of my hon. Friend's work.
One night, not long ago, a constituent was brought to me at home by his employer because the police, to his utter amazement, had come to collect the man and take him off to prison. He was a somewhat ignorant, careless sort of individual. One soon found out that a suspended order had been made against him because he was not making payments to his wife. He did not really understand it at all and he certainly did not believe that he was ever going off to prison.

Mr. C. Pannell: He sounds like a Conservative.

Mr. Sumner: I never trouble to inquire the politics of people in trouble in this way. Whatever he was, he was a careless sort of person, and this was the situation in which he found himself. He had not saved up any money, and there was a very large sum, well over £100, due from him. There was no opportunity for him to go to court again to plead his case, and one could tell him only that he would indeed be collected by the police—he had been given until the next morning—and taken off to prison.
That was, in fact, what happened. He was taken away from a good job. He left the other woman—there is so often another woman in these cases—and her children in circumstances in which it seemed likely that they would have to vacate their accommodation. His wife was not a penny better off as a result, and an extra burden was put upon the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport will be able in future to think that that sort of hardship will be avoided because of what she has done and what she has inspired. That reason alone will suffice me in saying that it has been a pleasure to have the opportunity to congratulate her today.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. D. Jones: I am very glad the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport (Miss Vickers) has taken part in this debate. Far be it for me to take away from her any of the credit which is due for this Bill, but during the long proceedings in Committee one began to wonder whether she had lost interest, because we hardly heard a word from her in support of it.
Although I do not wish to detract from the credit which has been given to her this evening, I feel it should be put upon record that there have been many attempts in the House to have the attachment of income made law, long before the hon. Lady introduced her Private Member's Bill. Indeed, as far back as 1934, the Fischer Williams Committee recommended it in its Report, but it was not adopted by the Government of the day.
Later attempts to introduce proposals on similar lines have been unsuccessful. One such proposal was considered during the passage through Parliament of the Married Women (Maintenance) Bill, 1949. The Women's Disabilities Bill, introduced in 1952 and again in 1953, contained provision for deduction of maintenance payments from wages.

For the benefit of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, that quotation is taken from the Report of the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce. We should have it on record, at any rate, that there were other hon. Members who attempted to secure the enactment of such a Measure before the hon. Lady.
I hope that all the hopes and expectations for the success of the Bill will be realised. I still have grave fears that, in practice, it will work out very differently. My fears are shared by the General Council of the Trades Union Congress and, indeed, by many employers. I will not weary the House tonight, but hon. Members will recall that I read to the Committee a letter dated 17th April, 1957, from the Derby and Derbyshire Chambers of Commerce in which were expressed grave doubts as to whether the Bill ought to become law because of the inconvenience that will be caused to the employers concerned. I am glad the hon. and learned Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State corrected himself this afternoon. He did rather give the impression in Committee that employers had altered their minds about the Bill. He was good enough today to tell us that there are two points of view among employers about how the Bill will work.
It seems to me that there are severe dangers still to be expected. I was glad to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman say that it is his right hon. Friend's intention, when the Bill has passed through all its stages, to publish a pamphlet. I presume that that pamphlet will be available to employers and employees, and I make the suggestion that, in that pamphlet, he should indicate in thick black type that any attempt at victimisation by employers because of the difficulties which are likely to be caused to them by the Bill will meet with the stern disapproval of the Home Secretary.
I still believe that there will be a tendency for employers to discriminate. An employer who does not employ many people may well find it difficult or inconvenient to employ a man who has an order under the Bill made against him. One must remember that the calculations may differ from week to week and from person to person. The employer in those circumstances will run the serious risk of either disobeying the law in underpaying or the employee


creating trouble because the employer has over-deducted. With all those difficulties facing the small employer, he may find it more convenient to get rid of the man rather than to suffer those difficulties. I hope, therefore, that the Home Secretary will make crystal clear to the employers that any attempt at victimisation will be met with his stern disapproval.
Regarding the suggestion of the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport, if statistics are to be gathered about the operation of the Bill, I hope that we shall endeavour to ascertain how many people with attachment of income orders have had their employment terminated. I can well understand that no employer will make it clear that he proposes to discharge a man because of the existence of an attachment of income order, but there are a thousand other methods by which the employees' services can be dispensed with.
Therefore, it seems to me that the Bill will need to be carefully examined. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) I hope that my fears about it are ill-founded. If the Bill can be operated fairly, it will contribute in some ways towards easing the situation of women whose husbands have left them. But if in the process of easing those difficulties it creates industrial dissension—and there is a danger of that—it may do more harm than good. I wish the Bill well, but I have very great fears that it will not operate properly.

6.23 p.m.

Mrs. L. Jeger: In view of the very gracious tribute that the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport (Miss Vickers) paid to those who preceded her in work in this sphere, I do not think that there is any need for me to repeat once again the debt that we all owe to her and to those who gave thought to this difficult problem in earlier years.
There is one important reason for supporting the Bill which has not so far been mentioned. The Bill gives a considerable opportunity to uphold the authority of the courts. It is very puzzling to many women who, after careful thought and often great difficulty, screw up their courage to go to court to bring this kind of action against a man who has deserted. It has been very puzzling

and embittering to them that, when the court has found that a matrimonial offence has been committed against them, the law of our land was helpless to enforce the findings of the court in any constructive or useful way.
The community owes a great debt to our magistrates' courts for the work done in this difficult sphere. In 1956, out of 23,000 applications for maintenance brought in the magistrates' courts by married women, orders were made in only 13,000 cases. That is to say that only just over half the applications were successful. I emphasise these figures because there has been a great deal of talk during the various stages of the Bill which seemed to suggest that some hon. Members felt that women had things too much their own way and that magistrates' courts tended to take too favourable a view of the woman plaintiff. The fact that only just over one half of the applications that were brought were granted is a useful reminder.
I would not for one moment have been associated in support for the Bill if it discriminated one way or the other. I think that that goes for all of us who have worked on it through all its stages. When a marriage breaks down, it is a tragedy for everybody. Those of us who have had any experience of social work would say that there is hardly ever a case of a marriage breaking down where the blame is 100 per cent. on one side or the other. The job that the Bill tries to do must be limited to ensuring some kind of help for the casualties of the break-down of marriages. It is not for Parliament to be censorious or to apportion blame.
The Bill has also a very big contribution to make with regard to unmarried mothers, but, again, I think that, far from taking unfair advantage of the provisions of the law, unmarried mothers hesitate too much to apply for what should be theirs by right. For instance, out of 33,000 illegitimate children born last year, in only 4,000 cases did the mothers apply for affiliation orders. I know that that is partly accounted for by the fact that many unmarried mothers may be living happily with the fathers of their children and receiving support from them. There are others who make private arrangements of their own without going to the court. However, there is still a large number of


unmarried mothers who are supporting their children without any help.
Many of the 4,000 women who apply for orders are let down week after week after an order has been made. All of us must know, as Members of Parliament, the terrible situation in which this puts a girl who has no other source of income. She has the painfulness of dreary weekly journeys to the court to say to the clerk, "Is there anything for me this week?", and she has to come away knowing that once again there is nothing for her. We know that the National Assistance Board tries to help materially in these cases, but, although the Board can relieve the immediate material need, it is no recompense in other ways to a girl who is let down in this way.
The second reason why I hope that the Bill will become law is that the community has been carrying an unfair burden in picking up, as it were, the responsibilities that men have rejected. The National Assistance Board, which has been helping to maintain 70,000 wives who are separated from their husbands, 26,500 of whom have small children, is surely making a bigger contribution than is fair. I hope that the Bill will mean that, not only through the National Assistance Board, but also through the other community services which have to be brought into play in these circumstances, economies which will be helpful to the public will be made. The main reason, however, for supporting this Bill must be that we look to it to ensure that women and children receive some stability and security, because that is as important as economic solvency.
I want to say a few words to my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones). I thank him for the clear way in which, throughout our deliberations, he has left us in no doubt about his point of view. I appreciate the difficulties which many trade unionists feel about this matter, but I would remind him and others who share his view that there are a few women members in our trade unions and I know that he would wish to represent their views also.
I am thinking specially of the National Union of Railwaymen, many of whose members live in my constituency. While he was speaking today my thoughts turned to the case of one of the women

members of the National Union of Railwaymen who came to see me not long ago in grievous circumstances. Her husband had left her with two small children, without any word of what had happened to him. She has had to struggle alone for years to bring up those children, and she has managed to do so without any help from public funds. She was very proud when she got a job on the railway and, through her own labour—and very heavy labour—managed to bring up a family single-handed. In those circumstances a woman has as much right to look to her trade union representatives to support a Measure which will help her as has her husband, who went off on a long ride from which he has still not returned—I hope not at the expense of the National Union of Railwaymen.
We have tried to meet some of the difficulties which have been raised, and in the circumstances I hope that the Government will watch the Measure in the early years of its existence. I am a little anxious whether the courts will keep the protected earnings limit high enough, and I am specially worried about the position where a second family exists. None of us would want a man who has made a second start, and has another family of small children, to be put into the position of being unable to support that second family. It is most important that those children should receive fair consideration.
We should be encouraged by the support which the Bill has had from the Magistrates' Association and many other bodies with great experience of this work, including the Society of Probation Officers, which should know, perhaps better than any other body, the difficulties and complications involved in this sort of work.
We are all indebted to the hon. Lady and to those who have worked in Committee to try to meet objections and difficulties put forward in all fairness. We must accept the fact, however, that this is only an ambulance Bill; it deals only with marriages which have broken down. I hope that there will be other occasions when the House can find time to apply its mind more constructively to the very many measures which should be taken to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce, which might save many marriages from breaking down.


Within the limits of what we are trying to do, and within the rules of order, however, I am very glad to have this opportunity of wishing the Bill every success.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. C. Pannell: I would reaffirm what was apparent in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. L. Jeger) namely, that from the beginning a majority of Members on both sides of the House has been in favour of the Bill. There has been an active minority, but the passage of the Bill tonight emphasises what should be apparent in any democracy, namely, that although minorities have their rights—and they have had considerable ones in connection with the Bill—in the last resort majorities must govern. I am fairly sure that the majority view represents the mind of the country. Not only to people who have sat on magistrates' benches, but to the more unfortunate women who have had to come before them, there has seemed to be something particularly frustrating about the fact that people could purge their normal liabilities by going to prison.
My constituency contains Armley Gaol, which always has about 30 men who have been imprisoned for this sort of offence. Anybody visiting such a prison and seeing three men in a cell will realise that nobody can consider this problem without a good deal of perturbation and alarm.
I hope that none of us will be ungenerous or ungrudging in the praise we give the hon. Member for Devonport (Miss Vickers). It is hardly fair to suggest that she was silent when her own Bill was in Committee. Throughout that period, because the minority was kicking up all the row, she had to be silent. Consequently, it must have been a very sore trial for her to keep quiet. Anyhow, the Committee held out, and at last caused the Government to adopt the Bill.
We ought to point out that the Bill deals with only a minority of marriages. Much of what has been said in opposition to it has been a waste of time, because the Bill does not seek to create maintenance orders; it merely seeks to enforce those already made. When dealing with the casualties of marriage it is as well to point out that it is, nevertheless, still a very popular institution. People who

become divorced do not remain separated for very long; they marry again very quickly.
The great majority of men make some settlement with their wives at the end of the week. The best marriages are those in which the wife does not ask how much the husband is getting, but is satisfied so long as she receives what she regards as a fair share to enable her to bring up her children decently. In the main, the successful marriages are those where money is not mentioned at all, but is merely passed over.

Mr. S. Silverman: What does my hon. Friend mean by its being passed over?

Mr. Pannell: I shall not get involved in a point of order on that issue.
The Bill does not necessarily deal with men in prison, or with the amount of public assistance; it is concerned with the proper care of wives and children—especially illegitimate children. The other factors are side issues. The fact that we pay money which should be paid by the defaulting husband, and that men are in prison who ought not to be, are important considerations, but the most important consideration is that where a man and a woman get married the woman should look to the man as her principal means of support. We should emphasise that fact, because marriage is a civilised institution which should be fostered and cherished, and the Bill moves towards that end.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. V. Yates: I very much welcome the Bill. The hon. Member for Devon-port (Miss Vickers), who introduced her own Bill last year, is entitled to much credit for this one. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones), who said that the hon. Lady had not had much to say in support of her Bill in Committee. We spent many hours listening to the arguments upon it.
I will give one or two reasons why feel that the Bill is to be especially welcomed. My hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools has expressed great fears on behalf of the trade union movement. My complaint about the Trades Union Congress and the trade union movement is that they are sometimes a little too conservative. In the past the


Trades Union Congress was very much against family allowances for years before their introduction, so the argument of fear is not valid.
What is a valid point is that the Joint Under-Secretary, when proposing the Second Reading of the Bill, referred to the large number of men in prison. In all the prisons I have visited I have never found a governor who did not feel that such people ought not to be in prison. In my submission they ought not to be in prison not only because of the overcrowded conditions, but because it is wrong for this type of person to be contaminated through our prison system. There should be other ways of dealing with these people.
I hope that the Home Secretary will not only soon find a way of relieving overcrowding but also of reducing the number of hours during which prisoners remain in their cells. Sometimes they have to remain there for 18 hours a day. Because this Bill will relieve overcrowding, because I believe it is wrong that these people should be in prison, because I believe the conditions are so bad as to make criminals rather than to rehabilitate people of this type, I welcome the Bill. I believe that it will go down in history as one of the great reforms of our time. I think that experience will prove the fears that have been expressed to have been unjustified, just as fears on other reforms have proved to be unjustified.
I welcome the Bill and I express my thanks to the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport. The Joint Under-Secretary showed considerable kindness in Committee in giving thought to our points, as he has done tonight, and I thank him for the sympathy that he has shown to hon. Members on this side of the House who have had fears about the matter.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Before the Home Secretary replies to the debate, I would like to make two points very briefly, because we have other important legislation to consider before the day finishes.
First, I want to echo the thanks expressed by a number of hon. Members to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary for their handling of the Bill, and for the way they

have fathered and maintained the Bill, which had three such delightful mothers in the hon. Lady the Member for Devon-port (Miss Vickers), my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) and my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White). Also, we should not forget to express our thanks to the midwife, as it were, the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
Secondly, I wish shortly to summarise the views of the Opposition upon this Bill. As is well known, we have had misgivings throughout our discussions, but we have given the Bill careful consideration. It merited consideration and the results have justified the care given to it. The House ought to thank those of my hon. Friends who took a great deal of trouble in tabling Amendments, many of which were accepted ultimately by the Government. As a result, it is a much better Bill than it was when it had its Second Reading in this House, and in a small way the results reflect great credit upon our system of government in this country.
Throughout we have sought to improve the Bill. We have sought to make the enforcement of the law effective and, at the same time, to keep men out of prison. We have tried to protect wives and children without being unduly oppressive to the husband, and we have tried to protect the husband against the spiteful wife and the wife against the spiteful or vindictive husband. The results of our efforts are not inconsiderable, and I would remind the House of six of those results.
First, we have established that there will be no registration of maintenance orders in the High Court until arrears are already in existence. Secondly, an attachment order will not be made unless it is established that there is wilful refusal or culpable neglect on the part of the man concerned. Thirdly, there will be a right of appeal for a man against his employer's interpretation of what constitutes earnings. Fourthly, we have made some progress towards ensuring that imprisonment will not wipe out arrears. Fifthly, we have closed a loophole in the case of persons employed by foreign governments. Finally, the hon. and learned Gentleman today conceded an Amendment of the definition of earnings, which, previously, we believed was too narrow.
There are, therefore, great improvements in the Bill and I think that our efforts have been justified. It would be unfair, however, not to remind the House that we are not altogether satisfied that the Bill is wholly free from loopholes. I am afraid that it will get at the industrious man in regular employment and that magistrates may well consider the awarding of an attachment order as the easiest and most effective way of making a maintenance order effective. I do not think that it will affect the case of the real wastrel, the man who refuses to work to maintain his family and is prepared to live at public expense.
I do not think that it will get at the man who is prepared to give up his job, to leave his employment and go to another part of the country, or possibly to keep his earnings down deliberately to the protected level. So there are weaknesses and the Bill will not be quite as successful as many of us would like it to be. Nevertheless, it is a Bill to which we shall give an unopposed Third Reading.
I repeat the warning given by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee). Over and over again in these discussions we have emphasised the dislike many of us feel for the principle of attachment. We welcome the assurance that the Home Secretary and the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury gave on the occasion of its Second Reading. It is because of those assurances that we have given an unopposed Second Reading, and propose to give an unopposed Third Reading, to the Bill.
Attachment, however, can be a slippery slope and it is a very short step from attaching a man's wages for arrears of maintenance order or affiliation order to attaching them because he is in arrears for his rates or rent or hire purchase or civil debts of various kinds. That is something on which we accept the assurance of the Government, but we emphasise that any extension of attachment is something we would not tolerate on this side of the House. Any attempt to extend it beyond the limit we have rather reluctantly conceded in this case would be met with the united opposition of both the industrial and political wings of the Labour movement.
Having said that, we believe that this Bill, in a rather limited way, will serve

a useful purpose. We are grateful to the Government for the way they have handled it, we appreciate the concessions that they have made, and we hope that in another place it will be still further improved.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler: It will be courteous to the House if I conclude this Third Reading debate with a few words, but I am sure the House will understand that I shall not make a long speech. I should like to thank hon. Members present and those who took part in the Committee debates for enabling us to carry the Bill to its Third Reading, and I repeat the undertaking which I gave earlier, that the various points we have said will he reconsidered will be considered before the Bill goes to another place.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Miss Vickers). In answer to the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones), I must say that if one is very keen on a Bill it is very often better to keep quiet. That is what we always tell Ministers when we want to get business through. It is very often better for the Executive to say very little, because business then goes through very much better.

Mr. D. Jones: Would that have applied to the right hon. Gentleman's hon. and learned Friend a couple of weeks ago?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Lady the Member for Devonport has followed this practice with great skill, with the result that she sees her Bill, although slightly changed, but still in a form which I hope she will find satisfactory, now moving to its Third Reading. The Government have been very glad to take it over. We were quite aware that it would not be easy, but it is a measure of considerable social reform.
One or two hon. Members, especially the hon. Member for Yardley (Mr. Usborne), referred to the Marriage Guidance Council, with which I have been closely associated and which I greatly value. I understand that the Council has approved the step we are taking. I welcome that, as I welcome the support of the many other bodies which have been behind the Bill.
The hon. Member for Yardley referred to an Amendment which was in his name but was not called, dealing


with the sums due from an employer under an attachment of earnings order when an employer was bankrupt or when a company was subject to winding up proceedings. That seemed to be a legitimate point, and even though it was not discussed here I will undertake to look into that matter before the Bill proceeds to another place.
The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) referred to the temporary local difficulty into which the Government fell when the Bill was in Committee. I can only say that, with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), I was responsible for a very considerable piece of social reform, the Education Act, 1944. At a critical moment in the passage of that Act, when almost the whole House was in favour of the reform, the Government were defeated on a vital matter, namely, equal pay, but that did not deter the Government of the day. Indeed, that issue was dealt with in a somewhat Draconian manner by the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), who caused us not only to eat our words but to troop through the Lobbies.

Mr. S. Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm what used to be said in the Lobbies at that time, that his right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford refused to carry on the direction of the war unless women continued to be paid less than men in schools?

Mr. Butler: I do not think my right hon. Friend elevated that into a matter of principle. We are about to discuss women and their place in the reform of the other place. My right hon. Friend elevated to a matter of principle the absolute necessity of supporting the Government of the day in a major reform which they were introducing.
I was somewhat comforted by the events of the other night, because I felt that one important social reform with which I had been connected had been marked—I do not say marred—by an event of that sort, and I am sure that this Bill will have the same glorious future as the education reform for which the whole House was responsible during the war.

Mr. Lee: Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the Chancellor that he

should make sure that his Budget is defeated with the same object?

Mr. Butler: I think that that ranks rather differently. I should not have liked any of my Budgets to be defeated. I reserve this right or privilege to matters of important social reform. Devices of this sort very often serve the purposes which animate hon. Members discussing a Bill. That is the spirit in which we took our temporary reverse, and that is the spirit in which the Bill will go forward.
The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) referred to the views of organised labour and the trade unions and to the doubts of the Derbyshire Chamber of Commerce about the Bill. It ought to be said by the Government in the concluding stages of this Bill that organised labour has taken a very generous attitude, because there have undoubtedly been fears about what the hon. Gentleman described as an extension of the attachment of earnings principle.
I repeat the pledges which I and the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury have given, namely, that the Bill is not intended to be a slippery slope for the further attachment of earnings. If it is any comfort, I reaffirm what I have already said, namely, that the right attitude towards this particular Measure has been taken in regarding it as a particular Measure in which the attachment of earnings is legitimate.
The hon. Member for Rossendale referred to six improvements in the Bill. I have noted them, and I agree that they are six improvements. They were made in Committee, and here I pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary, who has plunged into this matter with practically no notice and who took it on with the skill not only of one used to the forensic art, but with this reform very much at heart. It is largely due to his attention that we have been able to make necessary Amendments to the Bill, and I am glad that the Opposition feel that those Amendments have been worth while.
In conclusion, those interested in penal reform have attempted to keep the dour taint of prison from as many people as possible. As the hon. Member for Ladywood said, those who have visited prisons—and my experience of visiting


prisons has been largely during my period as Home Secretary—will agree that if only one or two men can be kept out of prison, then that is a great reform. I see two of my predecessors sitting opposite, and they will agree with me that this is something which greatly affects one in my present office. Even a visit to prison puts one back in one's own idealistic outlook on life. We are trying to improve prison life and doing what we can in our own generation, but this Bill will keep several thousand out of prison every year and will not only relieve our difficulties as administrators but will alleviate our consciences.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

LIFE PEERAGES BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(POWER TO CREATE LIFE PEERAGES CARRYING RIGHT TO SIT IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.)

6.57 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, after "person", to insert:
not being a person born in or domiciled in Scotland".

The Chairman: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if, with this Amendment, we discuss the new Clause.

Mr. Hughes: The Bill has certain implications for Scotland, which I want to put before the Committee. I do not know whether hon. Members realise that the position of peers who come from Scotland is rather different from that of peers who come from England and Wales. We already have two classes of peers. We have what I may call the "Old Contemptibles", that is, the old rank and file of hereditary peers, and then we have elected peers who are elected in a mysterious way by peers—peers elected by peers. It is on that model that some of the Soviet ideas of representative democracy were founded.
That process is to be further complicated by adding to the "Old Contemptibles" and the elected peers two more classes of peers. We are to have women peers and we are to have peers who will be known as life peers, so that there will be four classes of peers from Scotland in the House of Lords. This is confusing the issue far too much.
We would like to know from the Secretary of State for Scotland what demand there is for the Bill in Scotland. Many issues were discussed at a recent by-election in Scotland and I read them carefully—about the H-bomb, the Rent Act and other domestic issues—but I have seen no reference whatever to life peers and women peers in the House of Lords figuring in the programme of the Conservative Party. It may have been that the Conservative Party has forgotten about it, but I suggest that there is no demand in Scotland for the Bill,


especially in the peculiar situation in which Scotland finds itself.
I would further point out that as a result of the recent by-election, there is a majority of Members of Parliament from Scotland against the Government. The Government have no mandate to legislate now for Scotland, or especially to muck up the whole conception of the different collection of peers from Scotland.
Now that you have taken over the Chair, Sir Charles, may I say that the Amendment is justified purely on compassionate grounds? The last thing we want for you when you have earned your rest after your labours in this place is to be condemned to be a "lifer" in another place. We all know that you are looking forward to time and leisure to play golf on Prestwick golf links, and when you are hoping to do the fourth hole in about three strokes we do not want you to be called by wire because the Government are in difficulties with the Maintenance Orders Bill in the House of Lords. We do not want to see life peers. That is the last thing that we believe you deserve, Sir Charles.
I object to the House of Lords entirely. I remember moving an Amendment to this effect when my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) was a Minister, which would have solved this problem altogether. My right hon. Friend then called it "Bolshevism gone mad", but if we had adopted the Bolshevism gone mad in 1950 we would have avoided this latest piece of madness concerning Scotland.
What is the House of Lords? The Secretary of State for Scotland is no doubt aware of a piece of classical history written about Scotland and its institutions called "Our Noble Families", written by the greatest living historian in Scotland, the right hon. Tom Johnston. If hon. Members wish to know the truth about Scottish nobility, let them read "Our Noble Families", which, by now, is out of print but of which I have a copy which I hand round for circulation. The former Secretary of State for Scotland, Tom Johnston, gave it as his opinion that
Our present House of Lords is composed largely of descendants of successful pirates and rogues.
Is that the sort of place to which to send tender women?
In case it may be thought that the right hon. Tom Johnston is not an impartial historian, I would turn to perhaps the most famous of Scottish historians, Thomas Carlyle, who described the House of Lords in his time—and it has got worse as the years have gone by—by saying:
It is noteworthy that the nobles of Scotland have maintained a quite despicable behaviour from the days of Wallace downwards—a selfish, ferocious, famishing, unprincipled set of hyenas from whom at no time and in no way has the country derived any benefit whatsoever.
Now, in 1958, we are presented with a Bill to strengthen the House of Lords. I suggest that to send women from Scotland to the House of Lords, for which there is no mandate from the country, is unfair to the ladies who will be sent there and is quite unjustified from any point of view.
I know that I am not expressing the point of view of the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore)—

Sir Thomas Moore: That is a quite improper suggestion. I spoke against the Bill on Second Reading and only with the greatest reluctance voted for it.

Mr. Hughes: The trouble with the hon. Member is that he did not carry his indignation to the Division Lobby. He may not support me when I point out that the Bill may be his last hope. We do not want to see the hon. Member for Ayr, once he has left this place, firmly entrenched in another place. We know that the present check upon the hon. Member is the Election. When he has no Elections to think about, we never know what he will propose in the House of Lords. He might even come forward with a proposal to flog the property owners of his constituency for charging increased rents.
I give it to hon. Members opposite that the House of Lords has its place in our national life—not at Westminster, but in Madame Tussaud's. Next year, we are celebrating the bicentenary of Robert Burns, who wrote about the Lords of his time:

"Ye se yon birkie, ca'd a lord,
Wha struts, and stares, and a' that;
Tho' hundreds worship at his word
He's but a coof for a' that:
For a' that, and a' that,
His riband, star, and a' that,
The man of independent mind,
He looks and laughs at a' that."

Mr. John Mackie: That is true, but two of Burns' greatest friends were Members of the House of Lords. One was Lord Glencairn and the other was Lord Daer, the eldest son of the Earl of Selkirk. Burns was quite indiscriminate about men if he liked them.

Mr. Hughes: It is true that Burns was indiscriminate about men, but I can hardly think that Robert Burns would have been in favour of sending ladies to the House of Lords. I do not, however, want to follow the hon. Member in these devious paths, which would be out of order.
I suggest that there is no demand for the Bill from Scotland, that it is an irrelevancy concerning Scotland and that by contracting Scotland out of the Bill we would be representing democratic sentiment in Scotland. I know that the right hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) has a grievance, because the new Clause would exclude people born in Scotland who are now resident in the South. That is the penalty that the right hon. and learned Baronet must pay for desertion.
By excluding persons born in Scotland and persons normally resident in Scotland from the Bill, we are trying to find the formula that will exclude Scotland entirely from the Bill until the time when, we hope, ultimately the House of Lords will be abolished.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): As usual, when the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) puts down an Amendment to a Bill in this House, every possible aspect of the Amendment and its implications has been given the most serious and careful consideration. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]I am very serious in this matter, and I pay great attention to what the hon. Gentleman says, but it is true that he does say some odd things.
In opening his speech, he asked what demand there is in Scotland for this Bill.

Mr. E. G. Willis: None.

Mr. Maclay: He then attempted to answer his own question by saying "None", but I would ask him if he knows what aspirations may be lurking in the most unexpected bosoms in Scotland. I feel that even in some of his

more surprising moments, the hon. Member himself might just wonder if he would not be an adornment in another place.
A great deal of poetry was quoted on the Second Reading of the Bill, and now the hon. Member for South Ayrshire has made his contribution. We had Milton on two occasions on Second Reading, and I would remind those who are interested and who feel that the matter is relevant that Milton also said:
In our proper sphere we ascend.
There are other surprising results that might come from the Amendment which we are now debating, and from the new Clause which I understand we are discussing at the same time. One is that it would raise in a rather acute form the interesting question of domicile. I think I can dismiss that very briefly by saying that when we get down to the question of domicile, one finds that one might well have to go to the courts to discover where one is domiciled. That is one interesting problem that would arise.
Another matter which arises out of the new Clause is that it would have a very surprising result which I am not certain even the ingenious mind of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire had envisaged. If we accept the proposal that the Bill should not apply to Scotland, what would happen to the votes of any life peers created under the Bill? I am informed that it is very reasonable to expect that, as the House of Lords, as a legislative Chamber, acts for Scotland as well as for England, if the new Clause were inserted in the Bill it could have the effect that it would be construed as making null the votes of any life peer on any legislative proposal affecting Scotland. That means, of course, almost everything that comes up in another place. I think that the hon. Member, without realising it, has stumbled on an ingenious way of nullifying the votes of any life peers created under the Bill, wherever they are domiciled or wherever they live.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What is wrong with that?

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Maclay: I do not think that is a very good idea. I could not, even after the most careful study of the merits of the proposal, recommend that the Committee should accept the Amendment. Those of us who have moved at all about


the world know that one of the great things about Scots is that they have managed to get themselves into the most astonishing positions in the most astonishing places—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—that is really confirmatory evidence of what I said; I quite agree, and I make no quarrel about it.
It seems to me most remarkable that the hon. Member had really intended that Scotsmen and Scotswomen should he excluded from the House of Lords, when I think there is general agreement that it should include among its members distinguished, able people of wide knowledge, the kind of people most estimable in our national life. Having said that, I must answer the hon. Member for South Ayrshire by saying that, ingenious as his case may be, I do not think I can recommend the Committee to accept the Amendment.

Mr. William Ross: I am very disappointed that the Secretary of State for Scotland has treated the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) with such scorn, pretending indeed to have given it a great deal of thought and consideration. He even produced an argument that my hon. Friend had overlooked the fact that, by virtue of the new Clause later to be voted upon, I hope, it would mean that life peers from England and Wales would not be able to vote on any matters relating to Scotland. This was in the mind of my hon. Friend from the start. It was one of the reasons why he put down the Amendment. We are concerned in Scotland to maintain as far as possible the doctrine of democracy, which is much nearer to the hearts of the people of Scotland than the House of Lords.
The right hon. Gentleman might have told the Committee that, in relation to the Scottish Parliament, there is no history at all of two Houses. There was only one House of Parliament in Scotland, and that was the Convention of the three estates. The Parliament of Scotland consisted of one House in which the three estates—the Church, the barons and the freeholders and burgesses—all met together as one. We in Scotland have an entirely different tradition in respect of the House of Lords or of the treatment of our people.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked how my hen. Friend knows whether the

people of Scotland do or do not want this Amendment. Surely, it is a matter of mandate on which the Government should act, but they never told the people of Scotland that they proposed to do this kind of thing. They never asked the people of Scotland whether it was right to do it, and if we take the last election held in Scotland, we see that the Government are completely discredited.
I am sure that it appears to the Secretary of State that what will happen if the Amendment is passed is that the only life peers he will be able to get from Scotland will be defeated Conservative candidates at elections, and there will be plenty of them after the next General Election.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Perhaps the defeated Conservative candidate at Kelvin-grove may be the first life peer for Scotland.

Mr. Ross: What self-respecting Scotsman will accept one of these peerages? The premise of the right hon. Gentleman in relation to Scotland is that there is a whole list of men—and I presume women as well—in Scotland who are not prepared to become peers of the realm, for some reasons that are unstated, but who are dying to become life peers. We have been given no justification at all for this point of view. Who are these people who are prepared to accept these baser baronies, but who will not accept the position as at present? There must be a principle behind it. Who are these people? We are told that they are distinguished, experienced people from the professions, commerce and everything else, but this also begs the question that they have to be given, in some strange way, experience of legislation and politics.
How are they to be selected, and who will select them? Who will nominate them? What guarantee have we that there are people who are active and willing to do this, who are prepared to leave the jobs in which they are experienced in Scotland and come down here to another place and give of their time so freely? I do not believe that these people exist, as opposed to the people who would take an ordinary peerage. If we are to have this thing continuing with these second-rate baronies, I believe that no self-respecting Scotsman will accept them.
Let us remember that every member of the old Scottish Parliament was a lord by virtue of being a Member of Parliament, and the old Statutes of Scotland prove this adequately. They were called "Lords of Parliament".

Mr. Mackie: Not the burgesses. Only the county members.

Mr. Ross: Including the burgesses. I am not talking only of the Commissioners of the Shires but equally the burgesses. They were all treated as Lords of Parliament. Even the hereditary peers have never been called Lords of Parliament by virtue of their patents of nobility, but by virtue of their acceptance into Parliament itself.
We should be given a little more information about this. We have been told nothing by the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend asked pertinent questions to which no answers have been given. In Scotland we have a body of peers who are disfranchised from membership of another place. If there is a shortage of peers, why not give these true-born nobility access to this London establishment? We are not all anxious to see the Scottish peers in another place. In Scotland we have not the same respect for peers as there is in England and Wales.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: Not in Wales.

Mr. Ross: I am glad of that assurance from my fellow Celt.
There has never been any outcry in Scotland because a certain number of peers are disfranchised and not allowed into the House of Lords. We see no reason why we should create a new body of peers. They have given us enough trouble in relation to certain things they do which I am sure will be coming into some of our discussions on agriculture, fisheries and the rest of it. The common people in Scotland do not want this provision. I do not think it right that it should be foisted on Scotland.
If not the Secretary of State, then the Lord Advocate, who is learned not only in the law but in the history of Scotland, should be able to give us more information about this, which is another of the string of things which have been tagged on to Scotland. I do not wish the Government to think that this is a whimsical Amendment from my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire. It is something which we have discussed and talked about and we are determined to display our complete opposition to this new proposal to give rights to people not elected to rule over the destiny of the ordinary people of Scotland.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:

The Committee divided: Ayes 128, Noes 277.

Division No. 77.]
AYES
[7.25 p.m.


Alnsley, J. W.
Dodds, N. N.
King, Dr. H. M.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Lawson, G. M.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Awbery, S. S.
Evans, Edward (Lowestof[...])
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Baird, J.
Finch, H. J.
Lewis, Arthur


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Fletcher, Eric
Lipton, Marcus


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Foot, D. M.
McAlister, Mrs. Mary


Beswick, Frank
George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Car'then)
MacColl, J. E.


Blenkinsop, A.
Greenwood, Anthony
MacDermot, Niall


Bowles, F. G.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
McGhee, H. G.


Brockway, A. F.
Hale, Leslie
McInnes, J.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Burke, W. A.
Hannan, W.
Mahon, Simon


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hastings, S.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hayman, F. H.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Callaghan, L. J.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)


Carmichael, J.
Holman, P.
Mason, Roy


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hoy, J. H.
Mellish, R. J.


Clunle, J.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mikardo, Ian


Collins, V.J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Moody, A. S.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hunter, A. E.
Morris, Peroy (Swansea, W.)


Cronin, J. D.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Moss, R.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Moyle, A.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Oliver, G. H.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Oswald, T.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Owen, W. J.


Delargy, H. J.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Diamond, John
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W,
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)




Parker, J.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Weitzman, D.


Parkin, B. T.
Skeffington, A. M.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Paton, John
Sorensen, R. W.
West, D. G.


Peart, T. F.
Sparks, J. A.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. F[...]nt)


Prentice, R. E.
Stonehouse, John
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Probert, A. R.
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)
Willey, Frederick


Proctor, W. T.
Swingler, S. T.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Reid, William
Sylvester, G. O.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Woof, R. E.


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Zilliacus, K.


Ross, William
Thornton, E.
TELLERS FOR THE AVES:


Royle, C.
Timmons, J.
Mr. Emrys Hughes and Mr. Willis.


Shurmer, P. L. E.
Viant, S. P.



Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Watkins, T. E.





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Elliott,R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne,N.)
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry


Aitken, W. T.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Iremonger, T. L.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Errington, Sir Eric
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Alport, C. J. M.
Erroll, F. J.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Fell, A.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Fisher, Nigel
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Arbuthnot, John
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)


Armstrong, C. W.
Forrest, G.
Joseph, Sir Keith


Ashton, H.
Fort, R.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot


Atkins, H. E.
Foster, John
Kaberry, D.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Kerby, Capt. H. B.


Baldwin, A. E.
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Balniel, Lord
Freeth, Denzil
Kimball, M.


Barber, Anthony
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Kirk, P. M.


Barlow, Sir John
Gammans, Lady
Lagden, G. W.


Barter, John
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Leather, E. H. C.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Gibson-Watt, D.
Leburn, W. G.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Glover, D.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Godber, J. B.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.


Bidgood, J. C.
Goodhart, Philip
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Gough, C. F. H.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)


Bingham, R. M.
Gower, H. R.
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Graham, Sir Fergus
Llewellyn, D. T.


Bishop, F. P.
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Black, C. W.
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby


Body, R. F.
Green, A.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Boothby, Sir Robert
Gresham Cooke, R.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Grimond, J.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
McAdden, S. J.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.Col. W. H.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
McKibbin, Alan


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Hall, John (Wyoombe)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Butler, Rt. Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)


Campbell, Sir David
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)


Carr, Robert
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Channon, Sir Henry
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)


Clarke, Brig, Terenoe (Portsmth, W.)
Harvey, John (Walthams[...]ow, E.)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Cole, Norman
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Heald, Rt. Hon, Sir Lionel
Maddan, Martin


Cooke, Robert
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Cooper, A. E.
Hesketh, R. F.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (La[...]ark)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Marshall, Douglas


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Mawby, R. L.


Crowder, Petre (Ruisllp—Northwood)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Cunningham, Knox
Hornby, R. P.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Davidson, Viscountess
Horobin, Sir Ian
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Moore, Sir Thomas


Deedes, W. F.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Howard, John (Test)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Nairn, D. L. S.


Drayson, G. B.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Neave, Airey


du Cann, E. D. L.
Hurd, A. R.
Nicholls, Harmar


Duncan, Sir James
Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)


Duthie, W. S.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark(E'b'gh, W.)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Hyde, Montgomery
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan







Nugent, G. R. H.
Roper, Sir Harold
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R.(Croydon, S.)


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Russell, R. S.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Osborne, C.
Sharples, R. C.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Page, R. G.
Shepherd, William
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Partridge, E.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Peel, W. J.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Peyton, J. w. W.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Vane, W. M. F.


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Vickers, Miss Joan


Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Speir, R. M.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Pitman, I. J.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Pitt, Miss E. M.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Stevens, Geoffrey
Wall, Patrick


Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Wotcester)


Profumo, J. D.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Ramsden, J. E.
Storey, S.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Rawlinson, Peter
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Redmayne, M.
Studholme, Sir Henry
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Summers, Sir Spencer
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Remnant, Hon. P.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Renton, D. L. M.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Ridsdale, J. E.
Teeling, W.
Wood, Hon. R.


Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Temple, John M.
Woollam, John Victor


Robson Brown, Sir William
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Mr. Brooman-White and Mr. Bryan.

Mr. Donald Chapman: I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, at the end to insert:
Provided that the number of such peerages for life shall at any time not exceed one hundred in total.
We on this side of the Committee have made our attitude to the Bill clear. Our Amendments, of which I am moving the first, are not wrecking Amendments, nor are they designed to prejudge or prejudice the outcome of the debate that is going on all the time about what more we should do with the House of Lords. We are not trying to import into the Bill any significant change.
We are leaving the Government's view on the one hand that the position should continue as it is, with life peerages. Then there is the middle view of people like myself that the Second Chamber, without any delaying powers, should be reformed in its composition for a transitional period, after which we could make up our minds whether it was doing a useful job and should be continued. Finally—I would say this particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee)—my Amendments still leave the House of Lords as it is, irrational, an anachronism, and indefensible before the bar of public opinion. My Amendment does not affect her outlook or prejudge the outcome of the debate on the broader issue of the future of the House of Lords.
I hope that I start with sympathy from the Government, since I am not trying to wreck the Bill, and that I will not get

the hostility of the hon. Lady, who might say that I am trying to make the Lords less indefensible than they are.
This first Amendment proposes to limit the number of life peers to 100 and is moved because we want more information about the Government's intentions. If we are to make up our minds about the right number to allow Her Majesty to create on the advice of the Prime Minister, the first thing to know is what is in the mind of the Government and of the Prime Minister. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) asked this sort of question time and again during the Second Reading—"How many peers have the Government in mind? What sort of use do they intend to make of the power to create life peerages?"—but although he asked in his own speech and then at the end of the speech of the Minister of Education, who spoke on behalf of the Government, we have had no reply whatsoever.
One of our problems in probing the Government's mind on this matter is that we have had conflicting views from Government spokesmen about the purpose of the Bill. In the House of Lords on 3rd December, 1957, the Leader of the House of Lords, Lord Home, said that the purpose of the Bill was to aid the Opposition. He said, speaking of the creation of life peerages:
For this the arguments are strictly and severely practical. There is, as all your Lordships know, a small number of noble Lords opposite who enable us to present to the world


a picture of a House which is efficient and informed and which maintains a high level of debate. But, equally, we know that this is a brave façade and that on a small number of noble Lords opposite there is falling a strain which they cannot and should not be asked to carry much longer, and that this House is perilously near a breakdown in its machinery."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 3rd December, 1557; Vol. 206, c. 610.]
When the Bill was introduced into the Lords it was given the severely practical purpose of bolstering up the decaying Labour Opposition in the House of Lords. When the Bill came here, we heard an absolutely conflicting view as justification for the Bill. On 13th February, the Minister of Education said:
I would therefore like to make our position plain. We have not brought forward this Bill to assist the Opposition."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th February, 1958; Vol. 582, c. 608.]
One Government spokesman says, "We brought this forward to assist the Opposition", while the other Government spokesman says the reverse.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Does my hon. Friend think that the apparently contradictory statements are reconcilable on the view that the Government intended to assist the Opposition but failed to do it?

Mr. Chapman: Yes, I think what really happened was that the noble Earl thought this would be received with joy by the Opposition Peers. When they turned it down and said, "We do not want it; we have not been consulted", the Government had to turn tail and come here with a quite different justification.
The Minister of Education went even further. Having contradicted his noble Friend, he went on to explain at great length what he called the classes of increasing importance in our society who might now start to enter the House of Lords. He finished by saying that this opened the doors to a great reform. It was by no means a temporary thing just to assist the Opposition, but a great reform by which people of all ranks would be able to flood the House of Lords and alter its nature.
We ask the Home Secretary who is right, the Minister or his noble Friend. On that hinges the question of the right number of peers. If it is to be a temporary

matter of assisting the Opposition in the House of Lords, the Government could accept my limitation of 100. The Earl of Home said:
I hope and believe that, before very long, compromise will prevail … and agreement will come."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 3rd December, 1957; Vol. 206. c. 616.]
If it is to be one step now, why cannot the Government accept the proposition that about 100 would be enough? As this is to put enormous powers of patronage into the hands of the Prime Minister, would it not be a good idea to put some limitation on the number? I am not afraid of this kind of patronage in our Constitution within the right sort of limits, but we ought to settle it when the prospects of our Constitution are very severely influenced by the Prime Minister's creations.
If the Minister of Education was right and this is to be a more permanent solution to the House of Lords, is not 100 about the right number? If we are to have the Lords increased by these life peerages, do we not want to say what is the right size for the House of Lords? We would all agree that there are far too many peers now. There were about 150 in 1800 and only 498 in 1885, but now we have more than 850. If the Minister of Education was right and this is to be a more permanent reform, we must have a rough idea of the size we want the House of Lords to be.
My opinion is that it should be something like 50 peers who mainly do the work now, plus 100 creations specially appointed for the job of keeping the thing going until we have made up our minds, by a round table conference if that is desired, of what the total number should be. On both these grounds, I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that we are due for some explanation of the numbers the Government have in mind. They should say whether the number is right as the limitation on either of the grounds I have posed, and that either it is a temporary help for the Opposition or something more permanent in our Constitution.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: I propose to oppose this Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman) has put the Committee in some difficulty by moving it He invited us to support it because


it is likely to recommend itself to the Leader of the House and also to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee). I cannot think of an Amendment which is likely to recommend itself to both those hon. Members recommending itself to anyone else. I hope that for that reason the Committee will not accept the Amendment.
Secondly, my hon. Friend advanced support of the Amendment as a means of probing the mind of the Government. I am a regular watcher of cowboy films and I admire the Red Indians who are able to stir up apparently dead ashes to see whether any red ashes are amongst them. I doubt whether any great good could come from that operation in this case. We must look at this Amendment from a practical point of view, painful though that may be.
There is no evidence whatever that those distinguished people who have accepted hereditary peerages, other than' those who have served in this House, have ever done any work at all in the House of Lords. A recent book was published by Mr. P. A. Bromhead, "The House of Lords and Contemporary Politics", in which the author made an interesting analysis of the peers who actually work in the House of Lords. He was able to study only a recent period, from 1951 to 1954, and showed that there were 40 active Conservatives and 22 active Labour Peers. I am afraid that, so far as voting is concerned, he found no active Liberal. That, no doubt, is because Liberals are interested only in destroying the party system where they find it in evidence. Where it is not in evidence they have no interest in a legislative Chamber of that kind.
It is laughable to suggest that these life peers are intended to work in the House of Lords. There is no evidence of that. The only people who work there are superannuated members of the House of Commons who do so out of nostalgia. They record their votes in much the same way as they have done during a long period of service in the House of Commons. Let us dispense with the idea that this Amendment is to provide a working membership of the House of Lords.
The second difficulty at which my hon. Friend arrives is to run against one of the most ancient principles in

the peerage, which is that there is no merit in it at all. The idea that we should set a limit upon it destroys the great value of the peerage that anyone can get into it. If we put a limit on we shall have a situation in which for some chance reason a man cannot receive a life peerage. If 99 had been appointed, think of the anxiety of the Prime Minister and of the hundredth man about to be ennobled. Think of the difficulty of going back to choice by methods of the stud farm which we have in the hereditary principle. The Amendment falls on that count as well.
I oppose the Amendment for another reason. This Bill offers a Labour Government the one opportunity, without a General Election or legislation, of finishing off the House of Lords, the right of swamping it by life peerages. If a maximum of 100 is set it will be very difficult for my right hon. Friend to swamp the House of Lords without granting hereditary peerages as well, so that we shall be knocked down by the embarrassment of the hereditary tail of those peers for many years to come. If flotsam and jetsam were to be left as a result of such a mass creation it would be very damaging to the life of this country and it would make it difficult for those who, in the "New Yorker" and other foreign magazines, recommend Britain for its quaint old customs.

Mr. Chapman: It is not necessary to swamp the House of Lords, but merely to use the threat. Therefore, a Labour Prime Minister would merely use the threat to create x number of peerages.

Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend tempts me to be serious and to enter on the delicate ground of relations between the Prime Minister and the Sovereign, which is very difficult in this House, particularly as this House is without the consent of the Queen to enable us to discuss the matter. But there is a principle established, whether we like it or not, that a Sovereign will not consent to the creation of peers of the hereditary kind without the Prime Minister going to the country in an Election.
I think it arguable that a Labour Prime Minister, or, indeed, any Prime Minister, who was faced with a piece of obstruction by the House of Lords which he could not circumvent should submit to the


Sovereign that it was proper for him to create life peerages to deal with the situation. He could then satisfy the Sovereign that it would not leave this great tale of hereditary embarrassment throughout the centuries. Therefore, I should be very sorry if the Amendment were accepted.
I think that in moving the Amendment my hon. Friend has unwittingly allied himself with those elements in the House of Lords who already possess hereditary peerages and who would not like to see great numbers of life peers created because they might find themselves unenviably shown up by comparison. The question of putting a limit on life peerages has been discussed in another place. The Government, in their wisdom, rejected it, and I think that it would be a very great pity if, on the initiative of the Labour benches, we imposed that limit, which might remove from a Labour Prime Minister the weapon which this Bill, happily, gives us.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: The hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) is so irrepressible that I sometimes feel that the only solution to the problem of his family is for him to be kicked upstairs at once so that he and his father can fight it out in another place. [An HON. MEMBER: "They always agree."] If they always agree, then it is hardly noticeable in this place.
I feel that the Amendment has been put down as the result of a certain amount of confusion of thought. I certainly agree with the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East that the Amendment ought to be resisted, but not for the reasons he gave. I feel that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment is perhaps suffering from a confusion of which some others of us might justifiably also complain, which is that we are really tackling the whole of this problem from the wrong end.
When we last discussed Members' salaries in this Chamber, I made the only intervention on that subject that I have ever made. It was on 9th July last year. I said that in supporting the proposal I did so on two understandings. One was that the Government would seriously consider constitutional reform, and the other was that they would daily, hourly and every minute consider what had been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) about inflation.

The question of inflation would be out of place in this debate, and I do not propose to pursue that matter except to compliment the Government on the energy which they have shown in tackling the problem.
On the question of constitutional reform, I suppose it would be ungracious if I did not say "Thank you" for small mercies, though this mercy is a mighty small one. I cannot help feeling that we cannot possibly decide—and that is why I think that the Amendment is somewhat absurd—how many life peers ought to be created until we decide what they ought to do and whether the House of Lords is going to be a way of putting into effect a variation of the words of Old Father William—"Be off or I'll kick you upstairs."
I feel that for too long another place has been treated as a receptacle for people whom we would have gladly kicked downstairs, if there had been a downstairs to which to kick them, but whom we kicked upstairs instead. That is a great pity. I certainly hope that the life peerage now proposed would be something in the nature of a reward or in the nature of a selection of those best fitted to sit in another place. I think it would be rash to try to set a limit on the number of those people. It depends a great deal on the circumstances of the time whether or not what has been done by certain people is worthy of their promotion to another place. Therefore, I think that the total number is almost an irrelevant consideration.
The hon. Member for Bristol, South-East poured scorn on the fact that so few of their lordships turn up in another place.

Mr. Benn: With very great respect, the point I made was that those who turn up are the politicians and not the so-called distinguished men from outside politics.

Major Legge-Bourke: If that is the point the hon. Gentleman wished to make, all right, but nevertheless I think he would agree that he made some comment on the smallness of the numbers of those who did turn up. All I would say is that on the whole that shows a great sense of discretion. Many of us who complain of the party system, even if only expressing it by way of looking for another hon. Member with whom to pair, really ought


to be rather shy about criticising their lordships for turning up in small numbers.
I find it very hard to believe that the most important thing going on from day to day is necessarily that which is happening in the Palace of Westminster, in either Chamber. I think many of us would feel that there are days when most of us could probably be doing something much more useful, and, perhaps, more profitable. Nevertheless, because we have a certain party system in this place we turn up every day that we are requested to do so by the party machine. We try to pull our weight, or whatever expression one cares to use, and, as a result, life sometimes becomes somewhat tedious.
I have always believed that the reason why debates in this Chamber are so badly attended compared with the past is because so many people have to be here day in and day out whether the topic being debated interests them or not. I believe that if this life peerage system were introduced into another place there would be a far greater interest in the debates, always provided of course, that the right people were made life peers.
It is quite ridiculous to suppose that without knowing the answer to any of these things we can possibly try to fix a limit on the number of life peerages to be created. We have had examples in the past of attempts to flood another place with a new influx of Members. Personally, I believe that to be a deplorable step by whichever party it might be taken. I should hate to feel that the hon. Member opposite was serious when he said that the system of life peerages might enable the Labour Party to do that in the future. I feel that the sooner we can encourage the electorate to believe that it is an honourable and a noble thing to be asked to go to another place the better.
All parties have been to blame over the years for the present position. I think it deplorable that for so long people have tried to use the House of Lords as a means of getting rid of those who are no longer of any value from a Parliamentary point of view anywhere else. I am hoping that a small result of the present Bill will be that those who are created life peers will be people whom everybody knows are going to be able to contribute something better than others

could do to the Parliamentary life of another place. It is for that reason that I feel I must resist the Amendment, and I hope that the Government will also resist it.
Finally, I believe that we are tackling the matter from the wrong end. The way in which I would approach the problem is this. I would consider the job that had to be done, the power of peers necessary in order to enable it to be done properly, and then who should be given the peerages. We are told, unfortunately, that another place is going to die on its feet unless we make it possible for an influx of new Members to enter it, and that, therefore, this is the shot in the arm to enable another place to survive. If all we do is to give the shot in the arm and do not get down to considering—all parties in both Houses—how we are going to make the Parliamentary machine work more efficiently than it is at the moment, bearing in mind the vast complexity of State activity, we are missing an opportunity which this Bill offers us.
I regard this simply as an emergency injection. I hope that we shall get down to a real study and diagnosis of what is wrong with the patient and make sure that the proper cure is adopted.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Henry Usborne: I oppose the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman) for a number of reasons. I imagine that some of them will sound a little peculiar to some hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
Before I mention the rather peculiar points of view, I should like to say that I find myself in agreement with some of the brilliant things which have been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) but that there are others with which I do not agree at all, particularly those relating to fact. As is often the case, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East brings in a large number of books from which he quotes, and it appears that out of one tome he has produced the information that only superannuated commoners who are sent to the Upper House do any work at all. As I understand it, apparently nobody else does.
First, I have to ask myself what is the definition of work—useful work, or just hot air? Is the number of words spoken the measure of work done? If it is the latter—and it very often is thought to he the latter, except by the Whips, who only count the votes—I am reminded of the fact that one rather desolate peer complained to me the other day that for all the difference it would make the Upper House might just as well go to Abingdon because the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, did all the work in the Upper House. Yet he was never in the Commons at all. Quite a number of other peers think that way. Lord Shepherd, who was a Whip, never graced the Lower House. I do not think that there is any great substance in the fact that only superannuated commoners do any work in the Upper House.
I oppose this Amendment because I do not think it matters at all how many life peerages are created. Indeed, the only reason that I should want to know how many are created would be purely financial. I am sure that the Committee agrees that there is no point in this Bill at all; there is no point in producing life peers to try to save the Upper House unless they are to be paid. Otherwise, nobody is likely to take the job. That is the unspoken conviction of us all. Therefore, if they are going to be paid, I should like to know how many will receive payment.

Mr. S. Silverman: And how much.

Mr. Usborne: Apart from that, I could not care how many there are.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northfield, from his interjections and his massive speech on Second Reading, evidently wants to strengthen the Upper House, but he votes against the Bill. I voted for the Bill or, rather, I did not vote against it, for I want to make the Upper House completely powerless. I argued that we ought to make certain that the Upper House is a place of influence and not a place of power. Influence can be exerted without reference to numbers. Therefore, it really does not matter how many Lords of Parliament or peers we add to the Upper House if it only exercises influence, because the only concern of Members of the other place is to keep the debate going and to make it interesting. If everybody goes on saying the same thing, after the fourth

time it has been said everybody leaves and the debate falls flat.
The reason that the Upper House is dying is not that the Conservatives always out-vote the Opposition; it is that they repeat one another. I do not think that the Upper House should have power, and, therefore, a vote should not matter a bit. But it must be excruciatingly difficult to maintain an intelligent and interesting debate when nearly everybody approaches the problem from the same point of view. Therefore, what we have to do is, as it were, like a producer at the B.B.C. or I.T.V., try to get enough interesting people with all kinds of points of view so that when any subject is to be debated one can be sure that all points of the argument are adequately ventilated.
When that is done, as I have said before, I really do not see any point whatever in their Lordships going into the Lobby and voting—unless somebody desperately wants to say the same thing as his noble Friend has already said, then he could save himself a lot of trouble and HANSARD a lot of print if he could go into the Lobby and, by walking through it, would be understood to be saying, "I agree with my noble Friend."
It is absolutely essential that we should understand that the other place has influence, but no power at all. I have, therefore, been moved by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends who are determined that the Upper House should not be reformed because if it were reformed it would have more power. I remember that when my party were in office we had time to take all the power from the Upper House if we had wanted so to do.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): The hon. Member is going far from the Amendment which deals with limitation of numbers only.

Mr. Usborne: I gladly accept your Ruling, Sir Gordon, and I will confine myself to insisting that numbers should have no importance. if we become interested in limiting the numbers, it seems clear from what my hon. Friend has said that he is envisaging an Upper House in which the numbers count in the Lobby in the process of taking a decision or exercising power—

Mr. Chapman: That just is not so. I did not say anything of the sort and I did not imply it.

Mr. Usborne: If my hon. Friend did not say it and did not imply it I beg his pardon, but, having written down his Amendment, that is what it looks like.
If we were to limit the number of new life peers to go to the Upper House, who, in my view, should be the only peers who get paid—only the new creations should be paid—without abolishing the voting power which the existing hereditary peers have, if both of them were on a basis of equality in the Upper House, then by limiting the new ones we would increase proportionately the power of the hereditary element in the Upper House; whereas it is my belief that when we have a certain number—I would not know how many, but just enough to make sure that the debates were well balanced and that all the people who need to speak get there to do so—when we have enough of those who will be paid, those who do not get paid will, after a time, decide that it is not worth attending. They have all been saying that they cannot continue going there if they are not paid.
We should take them at their word and if they were not paid perhaps they would stay away. Then, in due course, the Upper House, exercising only influence and no power, can be composed of people who take life peerages, for only these Lords of Parliament would get paid. Then, subtly but without reference to number at all—because number has only to do with the exercise of power—this Bill would make a very great reform. Therefore, if my hon. Friend takes this Amendment to a Division I shall be obliged to vote against him.

Mr. J. Grimond: I must say that the hon. Member for Yardley (Mr. Usborne) lived up to his promise. He said he would advance rather queer arguments, and in my view he did. It seems to me that the people in the Upper House who come nearest to his ideal are the Liberal peers. Lord Samuel cannot be accused of not speaking, and apparently according to the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), Liberal peers do not often vote. This may be the ideal situation, and I would agree with the hon. Member that votes are not of prime importance except in a democracy, but I do not agree with

him that it is worth setting up a Parliamentary body which cannot and does not exercise power of some sort. To my mind, politics is about power, and the influencing of people who can exert power, and if we were to want a debating assembly merely it is difficult to see the need for tying it to the business of Parliament.
I do not believe we need have a second Chamber merely to revise Bills out in detail, because that can be done by a committee of experts upon the subject matter of the Bills, and we need not make peers, life peers or hereditary peers, to do it. I can imagine few more unsuitable bodies.
I would say a word in defence of the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman), not in favour of his rather forlorn Amendment, but of the speech in which he moved it. I do not believe the Government have in mind that the purpose of the Bill is to enable life peers to swamp hereditary peers, though one could not deduce that from any reasons which we have so far been given for the Bill. We have heard nothing from the Government about what exactly the purpose of the Bill is, or who are to be the people to be made peers, or how many of them are to be created.
The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) said that this Bill was a shot in the arm for the House of Lords. It is rather a shot in the dark—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: A shot in the back.

Mr. Grimond: —for no one has the faintest idea of what its effect will be
If we must pay people to go to the House of Lords to do all the work there we shall be putting in the hands of the Government immense powers of patronage, and I think that the hon. Member for Northfield was quite right in asking the Government to tell this Committee of the House of Commons, which is now responsible for this Bill, how many or at least what sort of number of life peers they have in mind shall be created under the Bill and how much patronage they will have under the Bill. What is to be the proportion between the number of life peers and the number of hereditary peers? The difficulty about the present situation is that if we create an immense number of life peers we shall be giving


an immense power of patronage into someone's hands. On the other hand, if we do not create many, then the Bill is not to do anything very satisfactory for the reform of the House of Lords.
I sympathise with the hon. Member for Northfield, and I agree with him that we should discuss this matter, and I would reinforce what he said, that we ought to be told more about this Bill and more of what the Government think its effect will be; we ought to be told at least approximately the number which the Government have in mind of the life peerages to be created, and what sort of people they have in mind should be made life peers.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): I am sure we all admire the private enterprise and single-handed endeavour of the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman). Clearly, he believes in a second Chamber. I hope that the Opposition Front Bench will benefit from his enlightenment. Although his endeavours are single-handed they are not single-minded, because he achieved the double purpose of making his Amendment a probing Amendment and one which be intended should be operative as well. I am going to treat it in both those senses.
In so far as it was a probing Amendment, he was asking what were the Government's intentions respecting the number of peers to be created and when they would be, and so on. That question reveals a misunderstanding of the purpose of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to aid recruitment to the House of Lords, but not to make a fundamental readjustment in its numerical composition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah".] I wish to make this clear. It is, therefore. not the intention of the Government that the Bill should be used immediately or within any given time to effect a radical change in the composition of the House of Lords, for example by creating a particularly large number of life peers over a short time. That is not the purpose of the Bill or the intention of the Government.
So far as the hon. Member was suggesting that the Amendment should be taken as an operative Amendment to the Bill to limit the number of life peerages to 100, we have to consider that sugges-

tion in the light of two important fundamental facts. The first is that the numbers of the House of Lords have always been unlimited. There has never been a statutory or conventional maximum. I believe that the hon. Member for Northfield is connected with the hotel industry, and so perhaps it would he appropriate to say that it is no good thinking of the House of Lords in terms of an hotel with a limited number of rooms.

Mr. Chapman: When one is building an hotel it is useful to know how many rooms it will have.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Renton: But we are not building afresh. This is a limited operation, as has been explained on a number of occasions during the proceedings on the Bill. It is a limited operation, the purpose of which it is to enable distinguished people to become peers without their having to become hereditary peers.
The number of hereditary peers exceeds 800, and that is a very vital number for us to consider in the light of the hon. Member's suggestion that the number of life peers should be 100. For reasons both of principle and convenience, we regret we could not accept his Amendment. So far as the number is concerned, I suggest that it would be illogical as well as anomalous to limit the number of life peers while there is no limit on the number of hereditary peers.
I stated the purpose of the Bill. It will incidentally have the effect of reversing the decision in the Wensleydale case and of restoring the Crown's ancient right to create life peers and to give them seats in Parliament. There is no clear or obvious reason why, when we are restoring the right of the Crown in that way, we should qualify it by putting a limitation on the numbers appointed peers.
Let us consider what would be the actual effect if we were to limit the numbers, because it is really rather interesting. If we assume that normally all the hereditary peers may turn up and vote from time to time, all 800 of them, the effect of the Amendment would be that for some generations at any rate hereditary peers would be a huge majority. I cannot believe that that would be the will of either House, that for many generations to come we should tie the position in that way.
Now let us assume that the hereditary peers whom we have to consider are those who turn up more or less regularly. I would remind the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) that the average daily attendance in the last Session was 112, and that on many occasions there was a greater number than 112 there, rising to about 200. Therefore let us assume that the number of hereditary peers which we have to relate to the number of life peers, to be limited to 100 as the hon. Member suggests, is somewhere between 100 and 200. On that assumption what we should find is that hereditary peers would for some years at any rate be likely to have a small majority over the 100 life peers, so the same result would be achieved, but with a difference in degree.
Of course, it may be that the hon. Member for Northfield does not intend that that should be the result, and if he does not intend it he will, presumably, withdraw his Amendment; but if he does intend that that should be the result we cannot agree with him as a matter of principle that life peers should indefinitely hold the minority position in another place.

Mr. S. Silverman: If the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that the two things which he has described would be, as he said, illogical, anomalous and undesirable, are we to infer from what he is now saying that it is the Government's intention to create more than 100 peers? If so, how many more?

Mr. Renton: No. I thought that I had made it abundantly clear that the Government have no intention whatever of binding themselves to the creation of any particular number in any particular time. The number to be created must depend upon the circumstances of the time, and upon various factors which will be familiar to the House of Commons, as they are indeed familiar already in the creation of hereditary peers.

Mr. Silverman: I understood that the hon. and learned Gentleman said that earlier in his speech, and he is now repeating it, but in view of that—that t is the declared intention of the Government not to tie themselves to any number—does it not destroy the validity of the argument which he has deployed against the Amendment?

Mr. Renton: I could not accept that it destroys the validity of the argument at all. If the hon. Member will reflect on the matter he will see that the two propositions I have put forward are consistent with one another.

Mr. Silverman: They could not possibly be.

Mr. Benn: Could the hon. and learned Gentleman deal with another point?

Mr. Renton: We have had a long discussion and I am anxious to reply to it, including the substantial point made by the hon. Member about swamping.
Apart from the arguments of principle which I have been trying to advance, there have been various practical considerations—considerations of convenience of which we should not lose sight. The object of the Bill being, as I say, to widen the field of recruitment, we consider that it is inadvisable to tie a Prime Minister's hand in any way. Suppose that we fixed a limit of 100, and suppose that enough life peers were created to reach that limit. The Prime Minister of the day might very well find that the limit having been reached, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East he might want to appoint two more life peers.
I would not accept the reasons given by the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East why the Prime Minister might want to appoint two more, but he might have very valid reasons, such as the need to ensure that the Government were adequately represented in the House of Lords and that the House of Lords was adequately served by Ministers. But if there were a limit, and the limit had been reached, the Prime Minister's hands would have been fettered.

Mr. Leslie Hale: May I be allowed one sentence?

Mr. Renton: That would be—

Mr. Hale: On a point of order. We are in Committee and the Minister refuses to give way. I was about to refer to the fact that there are three Estates of this Realm and that only one appoints peers, which is not the Prime Minister.

Mr. Renton: Mr. Renton rose—

Mr. Hale: Further to that point of order. Surely, you as the occupier of


the Chair, Sir Gordon, are under an obligation in connection with a matter of the privileges of the Crown to call to order anyone who makes a statement which limits or purports to limit the powers of the Crown. The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department talks about the Prime Minister appointing peers. He has nothing to do with the appointment of peers. He might make recommendations, which might or might not be accepted.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am not responsible for the constitutional accuracy of remarks made by hon. Members.

Mr. Hale: I am glad to hear it. Sir Gordon.

Mr. Renton: In the course of what I have had to say I referred to the Prime Minister as making recommendations to Her Majesty. If also I inadvertently referred to the Prime Minister as appointing peers, with all humility I correct myself. I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) for the opportunity of doing so.

Mr. Hale: But the hon. and learned Member would not give way.

Mr. Renton: I hope that I have now put myself constitutionally right.
If a limit were accepted and the lower the limit the greater might be the difficulty, the Prime Minister would find his hands tied—

Mr. Benn: As I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, one of the reasons why he will not accept the Amendment is that it might prevent life peers from overtaking the hereditary peers, but statistics show that in the last six years a new hereditary peer has been created every six weeks—an average of nine a year. Therefore, there must be some intention on the Government's part to cut down the number of hereditary peers, to give life peers a chance of reaching a position of the importance which, to my great surprise, the hon. and learned Gentleman attaches to them in the work of the House of Lords.

Mr. Renton: There is nothing in the Amendment about cutting down the number of hereditary peers.
I come to the point made by the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East about swamping. The hon. Member for Orkney

and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) also referred to it. Reference was made to the immense powers of patronage which would be created by the opportunity of recommending to Her Majesty that an unlimited number, or a very large number, of life peers might be created. I suggest that that is not a real danger.
Historically it was contemplated on only one occasion in the past, and one would hope that the circumstances would not arise in the future. Judging by the attitude of another place in the years since the last war, I would have thought that we could take it that there was very little danger of swamping. At any rate, the answer to the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East is that. there is as great a danger, if there is one, from swamping by hereditary peers as by life peers.
I certainly would not accept the Amendment to limit life peers to 100 merely in order to guard against a very remote and quite unreal danger of swamping in the way which has been suggested. For these reasons, my duty is to advise the Committee that we should not accept the Amendment, but I would say sincerely to the hon. Member for Northfield, who himself is very sincere about this matter, that we admire the lone fight which he has put up in bringing this subject forward. I certainly do not wish to appear in any way to have discouraged him from taking an initiative which has led to this interesting discussion.

Mr. Hale: I rise more in sorrow than in anger and with a feeling that what has been said demands some comment in the Commons of England. The Joint Under-Secretary has made some very surprising observations on the Amendment.

Mr. George Thomas: In the Commons of Britain.

Mr. Hale: Very well, in the Commons of Britain.

Mr. Ede: Surely in the Commons of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland is not in Britain.

Mr. Hale: I am aware of that, but we are entitled to our own views about the existence of pocket boroughs in the House of Commons. Some of us take quite a strong view about it—and my hon. Friends from Scotland have tried to exclude themselves from the provisions of the Bill.
8.30 p.m.
I should like to remind hon. Members that we are discussing a high constitutional question. I find myself rather reactionary in this matter. I like peers like ort—old, mature and fruity. I was brought up to have a considerable respect for the peerage as such. I do not always like these radical arguments about the peerage. I cannot accept that peers are not different from other men. If one considers our dukes, for instance, historically one finds that the first duke of the line nearly always had the advantage of possessing a very beautiful and accommodating mother. There are always differences of one sort and another.
Therefore, in the friendliest way, I must say that I did not like to hear the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major H. Legge-Bourke) refer to the possible action of Her Majesty, in calling upon her trusted and well-beloved counsellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), ennobling him, and having him to advise her in another place, as "kicking him upstairs". It seemed to me that we were reaching a deplorable level in our discussions. You, Sir Gordon, on whom Her Majesty has conveyed a signal mark of her recognition, must have felt hurt. Although it has been said, wittily, that a baronet has ceased to be a gentleman and has not yet become a nobleman, you can hardly have been left undisturbed.
These are grave constitutional matters which we are discussing. The Under-Secretary of State says that, by the Bill, the Government are proposing to restore to the Crown the constitutional right of appointment of life peers which the Crown always possessed. There never was a more impossible constitutional argument than that. I have put it in the precise words. I heard them, I recollect them, and I believe that they are within the recollection of my hon. Friends. The Committee of Privileges of the House of Lords cannot deprive the Crown of any of its powers. If the Crown possessed the right to create life peers, nothing that the Committee of Privileges of the House of Lords could do or say could prevent the Crown from going on creating life peers.
Although the committee on the Wensleydale case was somewhat perfunctory, it is a fact that about 30 have been

created in the last 200 years or so, without any particular comment or fuss. Some of them, indeed, have been people of very great distinction. I hope to discuss the question of life peers on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Sir Gordon. For the moment, I will limit myself to a consideration of the Amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman).
I regret to tell my hon. Friend that I do not regard his Amendment with great pleasure. I am bound to say that the arguments he put forward for it were more convincing than the arguments advanced by the Under-Secretary of State, but that, unfortunately, does not deal with the whole question under debate. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, first, that my hon. Friend was suggesting too many, and we should not interfere with the balance of the other place. Then, I thought he followed that by saying that the Government were not really going to do anything at all at the moment. That is just as well, because we have been rather prolific in our production of peers, not only just over the last six years but—let us be frank—over the last twelve years. About 100, I think, were ennobled by Her Majesty during the period of office of the Labour Government, no doubt on the recommendation of Labour leaders. One would have thought that, probably, one of the reasons was that they would attend the House of Lords and vote, but very few of them do, and, when they do, about half of them vote the wrong way. Also, we have the careful calculations of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East, who tells us that there have been about nine a year created during the last six years. Her Majesty should have many facts put before her before ennobling Members, because some of them promoted from this House I have not heard of.
The Under-Secretary said then that he would not pursue that argument any further. If we did not like the first, he would come to his second point, which was that we really could not victimise life peers by saying that we would limit their number to 100. There are 800 hereditary peers, and, the hon. and


learned Gentleman said, we should provide an adequate balance. Imagination boggles at the prospect of the creation by Her Majesty, on the advice of a Tory Government, or even at the contemplation by a Tory Government of recommendations for the creation, of about 800 peers. When, in the days of George II, a batch of 12 were created to carry the Treaty of Utrecht, they were asked whether they spoke by their foreman. Eight hundred seems to put it very high indeed.
Important financial questions arise, and I wonder whether there is a Money Resolution for the Bill. One of the important objections to my hon. Friend's proposal is that it would deprive these unfortunate people of the right to strike. Clearly, that would be so, if there are to be only 100 life peers and 800 hereditary peers. We should have the hereditary peers doing what they did in the general lock-out and volunteering for emergency duty in place of the life peers, who would be marching up and down Whitehall with banners saying, "Six quid a week ain't enough". Important financial implications, therefore arise.
There is the further matter of the serious financial implications which will arise because, if there is to be that large number accommodated in this building, the facilities must be extended. We have hardly enough room in the building now to accommodate the operations of the Kitchen Committee. Then, of course, as you know, Sir Gordon, they are paid by the day. They receive no extra money for Saturdays or Sunday, but they do not normally sit on those days. If another 800 people are to come in, it is possible that the place will be going on continuously. Instead of having 100 days' sitting, we may reach about 300 or 320 days' sitting.
What is the Governments' attitude to this expenditure—because the busmen would like to know? This is relevant. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) has made the effective point that, if we are to endure having life peers, there need not be any limit upon their numbers, because the only reason for appointing them would be to put an end to the second Chamber as soon as possible. Indeed, it seems to me that one thing that might commend the proposal is that there are hopes that that would be done.
I would like to ask the Under-Secretary—because he has not told us anything—what are these chaps and chapesses to do? What privilege do they get? Do they have all the rights of a baron if they are appointed barons? I take it that they may be appointed to any of the various ranks of the peerage—dukes, marquesses, earls or viscounts.

The Deputy-Chairman: We are concerned only with the number.

Mr. Hale: But I am in the difficulty, Sir Gordon, of whether I shall vote for a limitation on the numbers, and the question of limitation is involved in the duties. I want to get this as limited as possible. I do not want to detain the Committee, but we are entitled to know, before deciding how many to have, what they will do.

The Deputy-Chairman: That question does not arise on this Amendment. This Amendment is concerned with the number.

Mr. Hale: I am obliged. I kept very closely to the question of numbers, course—but numbers of what? One cannot argue about the figure of 100 without going further and asking what sort of 100 they will be. Will they have any powers, and, if so, on what basis will they be selected? What are the qualifications needed to perform these duties? When one gets to that stage, one wants to know what the duties are. Apparently, apart from dropping in once or twice a week there are no obligatory duties. We are put in the difficult position that we have never been told whether they have a title. We have never been told how they are presented. We have never been told how they are separated or hived off from the other more legitimate forms of peers who sit on varied and serried benches exercising varied and somewhat serried powers.
The hereditary baron has a right of access to the Crown. Will a life baron have that same right for life? I believe that it is still the privilege of a peer who is condemned to death to be hanged by a silken rope—and Earl Ferrers was allowed to go in his own landau.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but the Amendment is confined to numbers only.

Mr. Hale: That was, in fact, in parenthesis, Sir Gordon. I accept the fact. I


do not suggest that there would be so many executions that the point would arise under my hon. Friend's Amendment, and I will not pursue that matter, although there has been a lot of crime in the Lords, as everyone knows.
If the Joint Under-Secretary of State would "come clean" and say, "Look here, someone brought this up in another place. We have had to mother it, and we do not like it very much now", it would be a good thing.
Finally, when the Under-Secretary of State opened his speech and said that we shall not do anything now, I thought that he had in mind the dissolution of the Honours List. This is a very serious point, because, according to modern Gallup polls, if every unsuccessful Tory candidate is to be made a peer, more than 100 will be wanted. In the circumstances, unless somebody puts forward fuller and more cogent arguments, I am by no means sure that I could support my hon. Friend in his attempt to impose these limitations.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Chapman: I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, after "shall", to insert:
be of the rank of baron only, and shall ".

The Deputy-Chairman: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss at the same time the hon. Member's following Amendment, in page 1, leave out lines 12 and 13.

Mr. Chapman: I am glad, Sir Gordon, that we may discuss the two Amendments at the same time. This is an occasion when I hope that for once I shall have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). The effect of the Amendments is twofold. First, the life peers created by Her Majesty would be barons only. There would be no power for the Crown to create viscounts, earls, dukes, and so on, for life with power to sit and vote in the House of Lords. In other words, we would be taking away from the Bill the power, which undoubtedly exists—it was discussed at considerable length in the House of Lords—of Her Majesty to give promotion to these barons when they get to the other place.
The second Amendment, by deleting lines 12 and 13, would ensure that these

men and women who are created peers would not have the social style of baron and would not in that sense suffer a change of name to Lord So-and-so. They would be peers of the House of Lords without any accompanying social style. The Amendments, therefore, would have this twofold effect.
The first reason why that is desirable is because I do not think many of my hon. Friends realise that under the Bill in its present form there would remain with Her Majesty power to create these life peerages of the rank of viscount, earl, marquis and all the rest. The wording of the Clause, by the use of the word "baron" in line 12, gives the impression that these life peers would be of the rank of baron only, but that is not so, as was fully discussed in the House of Lords. It would be quite wrong to have life peerages of other than the rank of baron. We should stick to that for a start and we should not try to import all the rest.
In the House of Lords, when the matter was discussed in Committee on 17th December, the Lord Chancellor said:
It would be a matter of policy whether any Prime Minister would ever choose to recommend to the Sovereign to make Life Peers of a higher rank than Baron. … Whether promotion would take place would be a matter of policy. …
We want to know the Government's policy on this matter. Do they intend to stick broadly to the rank of baron or do they intend to create viscounts, earls and all the rest for life? If we have to stand the House of Lords for a further period, from a radical viewpoint the best thing we can do is to put into it barons only and try to make the place a little more reasonable in that sense.
8.45 p.m.
I am glad to see the Attorney-General because I want to ask him why lines 12 and 13 are in the Bill anyway. We have only to look at the Wensleydale decision to realise that the Crown always had the power to create life peers but was denied the right to create them and make them sit in the House of Lords; so the only doubt about the position until this Bill was whether any life peers would have the right to sit in the House of Lords.
If the Government take the view that the Crown has always had, and still possesses, the right to create life peerages, why are these lines in the Bill?


Surely any such creation by the Crown would automatically carry the right to rank of baron and to the style appointed by the letters patent? I should have thought that the Royal Prerogative already covers what is in lines 12 and 13.
The Lord Chancellor also said in the House of Lords:
I certainly take the view, from my study of the matter, that the right of the Crown to create a life peerage of any degree remains untouched by the Wensleydale decision and still exists."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 17th December, 1957; Vol. 206, c. 1242.]
If this is so, I cannot understand why lines 12 and 13 are in the Bill. However, the Attorney-General may answer that point.
May I go back to what I said originally and say this finally to the right hon. and learned Gentleman? I think that only barons, not those of any higher rank, and without the style and title, should have the right to sit in the House of Lords. That would be a commonsense way of meeting the point of view of many of us who object to the title and to the social snobbery which goes with it. The purpose of the Bill, as I understand it, is to send people to the House of Lords to do some work there. Why not limit them simply to being peers of Parliament, instead of adding all the style and title stuff that is increasingly becoming outmoded?

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I reply at once to what the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman) has said. With great respect to him, and although he has obviously given this matter considerable study, I would point out that he is under a misapprehension about what the Bill does.
The Bill provides that life peers shall be able to sit in the House of Lords. We are not concerned here with the interesting question whether a power remains in the Crown of creating life peerages without the right to sit. This Bill is limited in its application, and that must be borne in mind. It is to enable life peers to sit in the House of Lords. As the Bill stands, without this Amendment, it is limited to enabling life peers with the rank of baron, and with that rank only, to sit in the House of Lords. Therefore the first point raised in this Amendment is met. It has that meaning

only. It is true that, on one view, the Crown might create a life peerage of a higher rank, but this Bill would not bite on that higher degree of peerage; it would not enable the possessor of that higher degree of peerage to sit in the House of Lords, because of the wording of subsection (2). Subsection (1) gives the power
to confer on any person a peerage for life having the incidents specified in subsection (2) …
So it is closely linked. What are those incidents? The incidents must be that the:
 … peerage conferred under this section shall, during the life of the person on whom it is conferred, entitle him—(a) to rank as a baron …
no other rank—
under such style as may be appointed by the letters patent; and (b) subject to subsection (4) … to receive writs of summons to attend the House of Lards and to sit and vote therein accordingly.
I am sorry to disagree with the hon. Gentleman but he is under a misapprehension. This Bill only gives power to create life peers to rank as barons and to give those peers the power of sitting and voting in the House of Lords.

Mr. Chapman: What puzzles me and what led to my putting down the Amendment was what the Lord Chancellor said in the House of Lords. What he seemed to be saying was that once Her Majesty had created them barons, it would be a matter of policy for Her Majesty to decide on the advice of the Prime Minister, whether they could be ennobled to higher ranks.

The Attorney-General: In one sense, that is right, but the mere ennoblement to higher rank would not of itself give a right to a seat in the House of Lords. They could be ennobled to higher ranks now. The effect of the Wensleydale decision is that there is power to create life peerages now, but certainly the Wensleydale decision established that there was no power for a life peer to sit in the House of Lords.
If the hon. Member will reconsider the matter, he will see that the point which my noble Friend made was that, although there might be cases where a life peer was raised to a higher degree of peerage, that did not mean that such a person would sit in the House of Lords by virtue


of the degree. He would be sitting as a life peer and as a baron under this Bill. I think that I have made that clear.

Mr. Chapman: The purpose of my first Amendment is to limit Her Majesty in the sense that she would not be able to make these promotions. Therefore, from my point of view, my Amendment is still necessary.

The Attorney-General: That may be the hon. Member's purpose, but his Amendment completely fails to achieve it, because the words of his Amendment have precisely the same effect as the words in paragraph (a). The hon. Gentleman cannot limit Her Majesty's prerogative of creating peerages of a higher rank by an Amendment of this sort in a Bill of this kind. That would be quite ineffective. What he is proposing is the provision of a general limitation on the power to create peerages of a higher rank. I hope that he will follow me to this extent, that any one created a life peer by this Bill, can be created only as a baron, if he or she is to sit in the House of Lords. If any alteration is made subsequently, they will still sit in that capacity.
The hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to secure that life peers shall not have the social style of baron and not be known as the lord of anything. That is not our view. Our view is that the distinction between life peers and hereditary peers is simply that one will be hereditary and the other will be life. Otherwise, we see no valid reason for drawing distinctions of the sort which the hon. Member suggests.

Mr. Chapman: Why are those lines in the Bill? Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain that?

The Attorney-General: I thought that I had explained to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Benn: I do not rise to support my hon. Friend's first Amendment, which falls for the reason which the Attorney-General gave, but to support his second Amendment. As I understood the Wensleydale case—and this is what the Attorney-General said and so it must be right—there has been nothing from then up to now to prevent Her Majesty appointing a duke for life. That would remove a man from this House and kick

him in an upward direction, but if he were to arrive in the other place as a duke he would be kicked down, because the other place would not sit him in the House of Lords. That, I understand, is the legal position.
What the Bill does is to give such a man the right to sit in the Lords by virtue of being a life baron, but there is nothing to prevent him, as is customary in the House of Lords, from being known by his superior title although that was not the title which gave him a seat in the Upper Chamber. Lord Winterton is known as Lord Winterton, although he sits as Baron Tumour, the peerage granted to him when he left this House. My hon. Friend has missed the bus.
The point I wish to make it that, if we take the second Amendment, an interesting and serious possibility is opened out that if we want to send more people to the House of Lords there is no need to go all through the mumbo-jumbo of ennobling them. Indeed, if one looks at the history of barons one finds that originally they were people who occupied a special position in the feudal system. It was very questionable whether they were entitled to be called at all. The greater barons went to the other place and the lesser barons came to this House—although at that time the division between the two Houses had no meaning, because they sat as one Parliament under the Sovereign. That was the day of the united assembly, which we celebrate every year at the opening of Parliament when the Commons stand at the Bar of the House of Lords.
To revive the idea and the symbol of feudal land ownership in order to put a few distinguished people in the other place is absolutely absurd, and contrary to the traditions of the evolving Constitution. There are far simpler ways of putting useful people at the other end of this Palace. Commoners could very easily be translated to the other place, with very minor modifications in the law.
An example of a commoner who is in fact already a Member of the other place, in a sense, is the Attorney-General, who, on assuming office, receives a summons from the Crown Office—a Writ of Attendance—inviting him to attend the House of Lords. The Attorney-General, like all his predecessors—

The Attorney-General: I must correct the hon. Member in one respect. The procedure mentioned by him does not make me a Member of the other place.

Mr. Kenn: That is the point that I wanted to get at; it is a very interesting one. There is nothing to prevent the right hon. and learned Gentleman from going there. He need not be a Member of the other place, but he is summoned in exactly the same words as is a peer—except for one word. He is asked to give his advice and the peers are asked to give their counsel, but the difference between "counsel" and "advice" is such a narrow one that with a little disregard for the finer points of law, which characterises all sensible constitutional changes, it would be possible for us to send the right hon. and learned Gentleman upstairs without ennobling him. Far be it from me to suggest that removing him from this House would be acceptable to it; still less to suggest that it would be acceptable to the other House. At the same time, it is a practical possibility that commoners could go to the House of Lords.
My second point—which can be dealt with by the House of Lords itself—is that it is a well known practice for Privy Councillors to sit on the steps of the Throne. Anybody who goes to the House of Lords when a big debate is proceeding and stands at the Bar, as we do, will from time to time see senior Members of this House sitting on the steps of the Throne and making use of their advantage as Privy Councillors. Many hon. Members must have seen the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) sitting on the steps of the Throne and listening to a debate.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but he is getting rather wide of the terms of the Amendment.

Mr. Benn: With respect, Sir Gordon, my argument is that there is no need for a man to be a baron in order that he should go to the House of Lords, and I cannot see that the submission that a Privy Councillor might be enabled to go there can be held not to be a case for abolishing life baronies or not introducing them.
I do not wish to prolong the proceedings, because many more Amendments

are to be debated. I would merely submit quite seriously that it is very stupid, simply in order to meet an argument—which I do not accept—that we want to have heard in the other House the voices of wise men who are not willing to accept life peerages or for some reason are not suitable persons to receive them, to go through all the business of letters patent and the creation of this special device to prevent them from benefiting from what has always previously gone with a barony, as a hereditary right.
We are creating a special form of sterile peer, and it is a very unnecessary action. The answer is quite simple; it is to recommend to the other House that it should, by Standing Order, confer upon a Privy Councillor the right to be heard in that place. There is no reason why that House should not do so; indeed the people that we are sending to the other place are really councillors. We are suggesting that a certain number of people should be sent there to give their counsel—that and no more—and to go through all this funny business to achieve that end is an absurdity.
9.0 p.m.
Although I do not for a moment agree with my hon. Friend when he says that he wants them only to be barons, I do agree with him when he says that if we strike out lines 12 and 13 we are left with a perfectly workable alternative to the hereditary system without, in fact, creating an entirely new order of nobility, which as he said finds no parallel in history, and which I do not think will find much response in the hearts of the people here, or which is really in line with our constitutional development.

Mr. S. Silverman: Would my hon. Friend like to consider this point? If he is right in his argument that Privy Councillors can attend in the House of Lords now and give counsel, does he not think that they might be encouraged to do so, and would it not perhaps solve one of our difficulties in the House of Commons?

Mr. Benn: I would, of course, support my hon. Friend if I did not think that the consequences of doing that, as things are at the moment, would be that Privy Councillors would be entitled to speak in both Houses, which is a punishment that even in my most violent moments I would not wish on them.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: Having regard to the number of occasions upon which my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) intervenes in our discussions on one pretext or another, is it not far more necessary that he should go and be heard in another place?

Mr. Benn: If we were to give a lot of life peerages to our colleagues here, this House would soon be reduced to a very small number.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: I wish to put a point of view which has not been expressed in the debate; it is, in fact, the exact opposite of every point of view expressed so far. I feel some disappointment at the reply which my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has given on the Amendment. I do not agree with the Amendment, but never-the less I was disappointed by his reply to it.
I see no reason why a life Peer should not be promoted in the peerage if that is thought appropriate by the Sovereign on the advice of the Prime Minister. I would go further and say that I see no reason why life peers should not, even in the first instance, be made earls or viscounts. I agree that this is completely different from the point of view expressed so far, but in recent years, we have had the convention that an ex-Prime Minister if he is ennobled goes to the other place as an earl and an ex-Cabinet Minister goes as a viscount. I cannot see why we should, by this Bill, expressly preclude the possibility of that practice continuing, if it is thought to be desirable and if the individual concerned so wishes, in the form of a life peerage, if the occasion arises. I cannot see why an ex-Prime Minister, going to another place as a life peer, should not go as a life earl, instead of only as a life baron, if that is the wish of the Sovereign and himself.
I think that there are no advantages and some disadvantages in making a distinction between life peers and hereditary peers. My concern is that we should not make any invidious distinction at all between the two, because if we do we shall run the risk of creating first-class peerages and second-class peerages and I think that would be a mistake. I think that any member of another place should be there on equal terms with any other

member, and I do not want anybody, either inside the House of Peers or outside it, to think that a life peer is in some way inferior, through economic circumstances or for some other reason to an hereditary peer. I do not want them to be thought of as "poor relations".
For that reason, I not only oppose the Amendment, but also the underlying purpose behind it, and I express my disappointment with the reply given by my right hon. and learned Friend.

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) cannot have followed what I said. I said that there was nothing to stop a higher degree being conferred if Her Majesty so wished, but I said that any conferment of a higher degree on a life peer would not entitle him to sit in the House of Lords. If my hon. Friend did not follow what I said earlier, perhaps he will now agree that what I said was correct.

Mr. Fisher: I am sorry if I misunderstood my right hon. and learned Friend. What I said was that they should go to the other House on the same basis and on the same terms, without any invidious distinction, as hereditary peers now go. I feel that they ought to be allowed to go as earls and viscounts as hereditary peers do now, and if that is the point of what my right hon. and learned Friend said, I withdraw my remarks on that aspect of the matter.

Mr. Hale: I am impressed by the little bit I have heard of what was said by the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher). I did not hear the private conversation between the hon. Member and the Attorney-General at all. We shall have to have circulating microphones when these conversations take place.
I do not feel that this is very fair. I think that these chaps have had a raw deal. They have to go to this place, which is not very exciting—[HON. MEMBERS: We cannot hear."] I am sorry, but hon. Members opposite never seem to want to hear me. But I will speak louder with pleasure.
I am in favour of the ancient peerage and rather impressed by these various gradations. There seems to me a curious sort of feeling that barons have a


monopoly under this Bill. The Leader of the House, referring to the Wensleydale case, mentioned Sir James Park as a former Baron of the Exchequer, as if that had some esoteric significance. In fact, Barons of the Exchequer had less to do with the peerage than barons of beef; and they were very much blown on even at that time. Lord Campbell who was Lord Chancellor of Ireland and of Britain, or rather of England and Wales, and Lord Chief Justice of England, complained that an Attorney-General had once accepted a puisne judgeship and another had descended to become a Baron of the Exchequer, so that it was not regarded as a good rank.
The history of the Wensleydale peerage is that Lord Chancellor Cranwell found himself sitting often as a supreme tribunal of the Lords with Lord St. Leonard and they hated the sight of one another. Whatever Lord Cranwell said was the law Lord St. Leonard said was not, with the result that no appeal could be resolved. Lord Cranwell said to Lord Palmerston, "Something ought to be done about this. Can you appoint a reliable judge who is likely to agree with me?" There was some difficulty about that, because there were two Parks on the Bench at that time. One had an additional letter to his name and the other possessed a squint. They were known to the Bar as the "Parke with an 'e'" and" Park with an 'eye'". It was in fact Parke with an 'e'" who was appointed and, as the whole House knows, every constitutional lawyer has said that the Committee of Privileges of the House of Lords was wrong in refusing this; and not only every constitutional lawyer but the Under-Secretary for the Home Office said a few minutes ago that he was going to restore to the Crown the old privilege of which a committee of the House of Lords by some obscure means deprived the Crown.
It is fair to see who were the life peers created before. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be impressed by this. Of the 29 recorded in the Table of the Peers as having been appointed as life peers before the appointment of Lord Parke quite a number were appointed dukes or duchesses in their own right. There was no limitation whatever on barons. In point of fact, two of the most notable appointments were created in the reign of George I. Emmengarde Melusina

Baroness Schuldberg was appointed Duchess of Munster in Ireland for life and later Duchess of Kendall in the United Kingdom, and finally by the Emperor, Princess of Eborstein. She was one of the King's most trusted and intimate counsellors, as history records and took her duties so seriously that she was on duty day and night. There was the Countess Von Plaren. She was also the second most trusted counsellor and she became Countess of Leinster for life and Countess of Darlington. Sir Philip Francis, an authority on constitutional reform, said that the peerages were given to reward their merits in their respective departments, and to encourage the surrender of prudery in the younger and more handsome subjects.
But the question of dissolution honours remains important. There can be no intention to limit the degree of honour that might be made. In making his recommendations to Her Majesty, the Prime Minister would wish to differentiate between the man who was beaten by ten and the man beaten by 10,000. In the giving of honours, that is the only way it can be done. The Prime Minister can say, "After all, he did not oppose the Government. He did not join the Hinchingbrooke Party or anything like that. He played the game, played it well and rang his bell to the end, and something ought to be done about it".
The great constitutional point about this is that it is an infringement of the Royal Prerogative. We are not entitled to say that Her Majesty shall not reward her trusty and well beloved counsellors as she would think fit. In the Wensleydale case, when the whole question of the right to appoint baronesses and the appointment of life peers was considered, they looked up the appointments. There was the famous appointment of Lord Hay, who was appointed a life peer without the right to sit in Parliament. We are now proposing to give them the right to sit in Parliament but apparently no particular right otherwise. The grant for Lord Hay says:
Know ye that whereas it is truly a royal quality to further with condign honors, merited at our hands, men excelling in probity and virtue who are anxiously striving to show their devotion to us, and on them to confer benefits and rewards. We therefore, considering the long continued loyalty and faithful service which our well beloved James Hay,


and so on. No one disputed the constitutional nature of that award. After that, James Hay did a bit of work and kept the royal wardrobe, and therefore he was made a hereditary peer. In this case the record says:
We deem it greatly to illustrate the dignity of our crown and the beneficence of our nature, that whenever roused by the true power of virtues and deserts, with equal hand and with well selected honors, we impart rank and splendor to persons of excellence, who are able and capable of sustaining both the name and the burthen of honors, for since it is the concern of all that the deserving should be promoted, so it happens that the rays of the royal favor shed upon one man light up many others.
They lit them up in different degrees. The man who displays splendour and pure effulgence ought not to be limited to being a mere baron. The record goes on:
… it truly is a royal act to heap fresh honors and accessions of favor upon those whom favor and munificence have once infolded and adorned, and whom experience has shown to be grateful for former fortune, and animated to better deeds.
I would ask hon. Members to pause here and to remember that when the Prime Minister is making his recommendations, and a chap who has been made a life baron votes regularly on the right side, what can the Prime Minister do about it? That is pretty well the problem that confronted my right hon. Friend in his Criminal Justice Bill. If you get a life baron voting and turning up every time, being there regularly, the least we can do is to make him a viscount. In that way, we may weaken the Constitution as it exists. I would personally say, with this record:
We, therefore, bearing in memory as well the many and choice services of James Hay of Beaulieu, Knight, late our councillor within our kingdom of Scotland, father of James Lord Hay, gentleman of our bed chamber and master of our great wardrobe, as also the continued loyalty and deserving acts which the aforesaid James Lord Hay during many years now elapsed hath done and shown to us, and weighing with mature deliberation the truly noble and courteous manners of the same James Lord Hay, and his great prudence with prowess, and that he possesses a mind no less excellent in intimate affection and fidelity towards us than adorned with great endowments of nature and the cultivation of letters, and fitted by his assiduous and customary attendance upon our person to treat on all great affairs.
I am privileged to have been able to pay that tribute—not my own, of course, but

the tribute of the Crown of the day—to this gentleman, because, as far as I know, he has never been heard of either before or since. Therefore, his merits should be recognised.
9.15 p.m.
There must come a point at which we have to have our relations and I personally am not in favour of setting it. My hon. Friend seemed to anticipate a wide measure of support on these benches for the Amendment but even after listening with an open mind and a cheerful heart to the arguments which followed I doubt whether I could support the Amendment if it were pressed to a Division.

Mr. Michael Stewart: I find myself much influenced by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). I rather think that he was opposing the first Amendment, but possibly supporting the second. At any rate, the substance of the matter is that my hon. Friend wants inequality among peers. I have never understood, and I hope that at some stage during the evening someone will explain, the historical significance of the word "peers". So far as I understand, for years and years they have called themselves peers but insisted that they differed from one another in glory, and it is my hon. Friend's view that the difference in glory among them should be preserved. If I followed the advice given to the Committee by the Attorney-General, this difference in glory will be preserved by the Bill.
As I understand the matter it is as follows. Let us suppose that after the next Election it is designed to honour Mr. Smith, or it may be Mr. Parkinson or Mr. Royal or others who are qualified for support. In the first instance under this Bill he would be made a life peer. As the Bill stands, he would then be known as Baron Parkinson or Baron Royal. He might subsequently be created a viscount or an earl. If he were so created it could be a life earldom, which would not entitle him to sit in the House of Lords, but, as he still possessed the life peerage, he would be able to sit in the House of Lords by virtue of that. Everyone would still call him earl while he was there, and I cannot see that it would make much difference to him.
Alternatively, there might be conferred on him an hereditary earldom. In that


case he would certainly be enabled by virtue of the hereditary earldom to sit and vote in the House of Lords, but I presume he would not at the same time continue to hold a life peerage and the hereditary earldom. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Possibly that is a matter on which we may have further advice.

Mr. Chapman: I think my hon. Friend is wrong there. Her Majesty's prerogative to create peers with no power to sit in the House of Lords has always existed, and it would continue.

Mr. Stewart: So, if a man is created a life peer under this Measure and subsequently is given an hereditary earldom, he has two claims to a seat in the House of Lords?

Mr. Hale: The life peerage would merge in the hereditary earldom. The real danger is if he becomes a life earl and an hereditary baron and marries a countess in her own right. The question then becomes extremely complex. It would mean that in the West End of London every major domo must read for the Bar. There would arise for the Minister of Agriculture fascinating problems about sex linkage.

Mr. Stewart: If such a man has two claims to a seat in the Lords—one, that he has been made a life peer under this Measure and, two, that subsequently he has been made an hereditary earl—it does not seem quite fair that he has only one vote there. That brings me to my private, but in my judgment compelling, reason for liking the second Amendment and not the first. If we have these life peers but in fact they can have conferred on them higher ranks of peerage than barons by which they will be called although it is not by virtue of them that they sit in the Lords, that opens the way in future to an important reform.
It may well happen that a party finds itself with an overwhelming majority in this House but with a serious minority in the other House, and that, in order to remedy that position, it does not want to create peerages, either hereditary or life, on a very large scale. My view of how one could get round that is to arrange that the number of votes cast by Members of another place should vary with the rank they hold, that barons should cast one vote, viscounts two votes, earls three votes, and so on. It would then be

possible for the Government of the day to increase their majority in the Lords simply by raising the rank in the peerage of a limited number of their own sup porters. This would combine the democratic principle of final authority in the hands of the party that had the majority in this House without making the other place unreasonably large.

Mr. Frederick Lee: Would my hon. Friend compel the said nobleman to vote on each occasion in the same Lobby or allow him to change his vote?

Mr. Stewart: That is a very interesting point. It would enable Members of another place to express various degrees of qualified approval for the policies that might be put before them.
I am bound to say, with great respect to those of my hon. Friends who have taken part in the debate, that unless we are to give the different ranks of the peerage some solid value like that, I find it difficult to imagine a more important question than the question of by what rank or title these life peers are called.

Mr. Charles Pannell: Does not my hon. Friend think that the giving of five votes to a duke, especially a Liberal duke, would get over the curious dichotomy which affects Liberals when they really do not know in which Lobby to vote?

Mr. Stewart: I am immensely obliged to my hon. Friend. I am very gratified to find that no sooner do I make a proposal than I immediately have support for my arguments, which I never previously imagined, from several of my hon. Friends. I think, therefore, that it would be a good thing to make sure that these life peers can be of different ranks, and we can keep this proposal in mind for adoption should the need arise on a subsequent occasion.

Amendment negatived.

Miss Jennie Lee: I beg to move, in page 1, line 18, to leave out subsection (3).
The purpose of this Amendment is to reject the proposition that life peeresses should be sent to the other place. I am glad of this opportunity to ask the Government spokesmen to be kind enough to enlighten us a little more about their motives and their intentions in regard to


women in this matter. For instance, it is quite plain that if the Government wished to do so they could create hereditary peeresses who would sit in the other House. No one has yet explained to us why that proposal has not been brought forward.
The representatives of the Government ask us to believe that in sending peeresses to the House of Lords they are honouring my sex, that such peeresses would have to be women of distinction, that this is a step towards sex equality and that there is something very strange about those of us sitting on this side of the Committee who are not impressed by and who do not agree with that suggestion. If it is an honour for women to be sent to the other place, why do hon. Members, particularly noble Lords, not start with the women in their own families? Do not they think any of them are worthy of being honoured? Why are peeresses in their own right excluded? Do they lack the intelligence or the personality, or are the Lords insistent that they are only going to put up with strange women? It is an extraordinary proposition that should come to us from the Lords, that they are willing to countenance the women they do not know but are not going to have anything to do with women whom they do know.

Mr. John Hall: Would not the hon. Lady agree that there are sometimes disadvantages in a husband and wife serving in the same House?

Miss Lee: The hon. Gentleman must speak for himself. I think we had better confine our attention to the other place. Let us get one point cleared up at a time.
Hon. Members opposite have enough votes to allow hereditary peeresses to take their place in the Upper House. As is well known, I do not believe in the other place. I have enjoyed myself very much this afternoon. I am a great fan of the Crazy Gang, and I should like to compliment many of my colleagues on their ability as amateur entertainers, for they have almost been up to the standard of the Crazy Gang, which is precisely how this whole issue of the House of Lords ought to be treated. It is nonsense. We were entitled to have a bit of fun this afternoon, but it is nonsense which the

Government have put before us, though presumably the Government want it to be treated as sense. Therefore, will the Government spokesman give us a little help and not dodge the issue?
If we are seeking to honour women, why not begin by introducing the hereditary peeresses into the other House? Throughout the whole debate there has been an argument with which I do not agree. It applies to this Amendment, but it applies also to men who are to be made life peers. All the time we hear that if distinguished men or women are going to be sent to the other place, the likelihood is that they will be appointed only as life peers or peeresses.
Is it intended to make all the undistinguished people hereditary peers and the distinguished people life peers? If that is the case, it seems to me that many hon. Members opposite have lost their sense of social survival. Historically the Lords have maintained their position by allowing new blood to refresh them. The vulgar tradesmen's blood in the 19th century was accepted when there was enough money attached to them. But in terms of survival do not the Government think that the hereditary peers could do with a little distinguished blood? Why should the children of distinguished men and women be excluded, while there is presumably a special corner for the undistinguished hereditary peers?
I totally fail to understand what the Government are trying to do. Or do I understand? This is not a new idea that hereditary peers or even peeresses should be created. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) enlightened us a great deal about the seventeenth century life peeresses who were not asked to serve in another House. This is not a new idea. But at the bottom of it—and this argument applies to women as well as to men—there is a great deal of snobbery. The old idea is that to be a hereditary peer one has to have broad acres to sustain the position. Many people have been greatly distressed because in recent times there have been hereditary peers who lacked those broad acres.

Mr. Hale: My hon. Friend said that I referred to the creation of life peeresses in the seventeenth century. In fact, I referred to the eighteenth century, but


it was out of a sense of decency and decorum that I made no reference to Louise de la Kerouaille.

9.30 p.m.

Miss Lee: I accept that correction, but not the explanation.
We are asked to believe that the Government are seriously honouring women by extending the Bill to them, but we know what the situation really is. We know that the Government are anxious to maintain a permanent Tory majority in the other Chamber, and they know that the other Chamber is deadly dull, so deadly dull that something has to be done to give it a little more news interest and a little more brightness. I am opposed to members of my own sex being given these peerages because I think they could improve the other place. I am putting a feminist, not an anti-feminist, argument. If I thought that the presence of women would make the second Chamber duller, more stupid, more reactionary than it is, I would reconsider my Amendment.
As it is, I think it has been made absolutely clear today that this is a shoddy, little smart Alec of a Bill. Certain noble Lords have taken a look at Members on these benches and they have made a cold calculation and have wondered, "Just how much can we give away to those simpletons on the Labour benches?" No doubt they thought that the women amongst us were the simplest of the lot. Their attitude shows the contempt in which they hold women. Otherwise they would have had their own womenfolk in their House long ago. They thought we should be taken in by this superficial argument and that we should think this a step in the right direction. They would not have done so if they were really concerned with the dignity of the status of women. But they thought we should be taken in by this life peerage proposition. If we are to have a House of Lords I prefer the hereditary principle to this bastard, hybrid proposition. For a hundred years attempts have been made to introduce life peers for all kinds of reasons. Those attempts have been rejected, and I hope that this Committee will see the reality behind this argument put forward by the Government.
After enjoying itself today I hope the Committee will teach the Government that we are in earnest about this matter. One thing I have not liked in the debate has been the assumption now and again that we are going to implement this Bill, that we are really going to allow all this to happen. I hope that it will be clearly stated from this side that we are not. If the Tories use their majority to foist this foolish, deceiving Measure through they can nominate their Tory life peers and peeresses. We cannot stop them from doing that. They can call the peeresses duchesses, countesses, ladies, whatever they like. We do not know what they intend to call them. I do not see why we should be kept in an agony of suspense about that, and we ought to be given that much information. However, let them do what they want, but let it be clearly understood that this is a party Measure, a partisan Measure, and that every argument used to sustain it has been made by Government spokesmen in that sense.
The Leader of the Opposition made perfectly clear during the debate on Second Reading that we had not been consulted and that we did not want this Bill and that we were not taken in by the kind uncle act being put on by hon. and right hon. Members opposite. If their intention was to give the children on this side a treat, now that we have made it perfectly clear, by voting against the Second Reading, as we shall vote against the Third Reading, that we do not want it, why go on piling absurdity upon absurdity? Let us face the truth of the situation, which is that the Tories are at their wits' end to know how to support an institution which is insupportable. The sooner it is replaced by a sensible and reformed House the sooner we can get a decent improved constitutional arrangement. If we cannot do that, if we have to have a second Chamber, let it be a sensible Chamber and, for goodness' sake, let us not try to drag in a number of women to camouflage it.

Lady Tweedsmuir: I find this a most fascinating Amendment. To think that the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee), with all her protestations of feminist hopes, should move an Amendment which seeks to exclude women from one of the last two professions or callings denied to them in this


country! When I think of the numerous women's organisations with which the hon. Lady has been associated, I feel that she is quite out of touch with public opinion today.
When I listened to some of the debates in another place, I did not think that certain noble Lords, who were against the inclusion of women in another place, would get such unusual support. If there is to be a protest march on the subject, I can hardly wait to see it reaching Parliament Square, past the statue of Mrs. Pankhurst, led by the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock and flanked by Lord Airlie and Lord Glasgow.

Miss Lee: Would the noble Lady please help right hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite on this problem of what is to be done about the poor hereditary peeresses?

Lady Tweedsmuir: I shall indeed say something shortly about the position of hereditary peeresses, but I should like to comment first on a remark made by the hon. Lady. She seemed to think, illogically, that the Upper House would be much strengthened if women were included. Surely, she does not claim that the addition of a few women to the Upper House will make all that difference. The real fact, and the hon. Lady says it quite candidly, is that she wants to abolish the Upper House altogether. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Judging by the support given to that view, it really makes one feel, unless a member of the Opposition Front Bench rises to deny it now, that that really is the view of the official Opposition as well. I think that the Committee will judge by the silence of right hon. Gentlemen opposite that their secret policy is to abolish the House of Lords, that they know it quite well but they dare not say it in public.
People in this country have an extraordinary political sense, a kind of sixth sense, and a profound political instinct that would make them suspect the motives of any who were afraid of the restraint which the Upper House brings into the Constitution. Those who are afraid of a Measure like this Bill to strengthen the Upper House really oppose it because they are afraid of the restraint on the Constitution, despite the

fact that it was under a Labour Government in 1949 that the present powers of the Upper House were agreed upon. One must ask, therefore, why it is that hon. Members opposite are afraid that those powers should be used.
I want to turn once again to the main part of the Amendment, which deals with the question whether women should or should not be included in the House of Lords. When the country has agreed since 1918 that women have some contribution to make to the House of Commons, I see no logical reason why they should not make a contribution in another place. Whether women have been any good in the House of Commons is, of course, a 64,000-dollar question which it is not for me to answer.
Strangely enough, I support the view of the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock about hereditary peeresses. It is extraordinarily illogical that the Government should admit women life peers and yet deny to women hereditary peers in their own right what is called seat, voice and place in the Upper House. I think I am right in saying that they are the only citizens of the country who are denied basic political rights. There are only twenty-four of them. Seven are Scottish representative peeresses and would, therefore, presumably, come under our system of the election of Scottish representative peers. It is quite likely that these peeresses might not wish to take their place and vote and speak in another place. The Government have said that they would be eligible for consideration as life peers while keeping the hereditary title. Surely, that does not get over the fact that they are still denied basic political rights.
It is said also of the twenty-four women concerned that their inclusion cannot be considered now because it would extend the hereditary system. The Government have not mentioned that they do not intend to make any more hereditary peers. Therefore, while there is still a possibility of creating more hereditary peers, there is no justification for denying these particular women the rights which have for so long been withheld from them. While few will support their claim, because they are few in number, I trust, nevertheless, that, when they are elected for a further term of office in the near future, the Government will make this reform as part of a far wider reform of the House of Lords.
I hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment. It would, thereby, give a chance for many women who have served the country well outside the House to take their part in public affairs, women who for personal or family reasons, or even for health reasons, perhaps, cannot represent a constituency. I think that the Upper House would be enriched by their presence in suitable numbers. Lastly, the Amendment should be rejected because it conceals an ill design under an antifeminist approach.

Mr. H. Morrison: I hope the Home Secretary will not give the undertaking requested by the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) at a later date to bring in still wider reforms of the House of Lords. This is a modest and limited Bill. If we begin to talk about wider and more sweeping reforms, we should run the risk of having to go into the whole range of the powers of their Lordships' House; any contemplation of those powers being increased would be wrong and, I think, bad.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) and with the noble Lady in one respect. I cannot understand why the concession as regards women is limited to what I may call life peerage women. I am not sure whether the name "hereditary peeresses" is the right name for the others; I am never quite sure what they are, but, since that name has been used, I had better use it. I cannot follow why recognition of the principle of political sex equality should not be extended to hereditary peeresses. It seems to me that, so long as we have hereditary peers, the women have an equal right. I should have thought that that was a reasonable request to make to the Government. For all I know, there may be very serious technical, or, perhaps, legal difficulties, and if that be so we ought to have the matter explained. If not, I agree with the two hon. Ladies who have spoken in regretting that the concession has not been made.
On the main issue which my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock has raised, with great respect, I just cannot agree with her. In discussing this limited Bill, one is bound to have views coloured by strong feelings, perhaps, which I understand, about the House of Lords as an institution.
Surely we have to consider the proposals in the Bill on the merits of the case. I have consistently thought that the Labour Party has always been in favour of equality of political rights as between men and women. We supported the suffrage campaign at a time when even a Liberal Government were against making the concession of the vote to women. We supported it with great vigour, and we believed in it in days when the claim of the vote for women was not popular.
9.45 p.m.
We on this side have supported the rights of women in other respects on a number of occasions. It would be out of place, having regard to our traditions on political sex equality, for us now to reverse our decision and say that it can obtain anywhere but not in one of the Houses of Parliament, namely, the House of Lords. Their Lordships' House is the only public authority left, as far as I know, in which women are denied equal rights. I think that that is an insult to women. I know that there are certain reactionary and rather stuffy Lords who do not want women in their Chamber. Whether they are afraid, with my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock, that they will make the place more respectable, or whether they are afraid that they will make the place less respectable, I do not know. But it is true that certain backward noble Lords in the other place rather shiver at the idea of women being in their Chamber and taking part in their discussions.
I have met this trouble before. It so happens that I have a remarkable record about the rights of women. I was instrumental in getting the first woman member of the Metropolitan Water Board appointed. The extraordinary thing is that it had never occurred to anybody before that women were interested in the water supply of London. When the proposal went forward, some of the old gentlemen on the Water Board shivered and said that this had never been done before and did not welcome the proposal. They were terribly worried about the lavatory accommodation, which I thought was a simple matter to put right. The same thing happened when the L.C.C. put the first woman on the London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority.
It was we as a Labour Party who appointed the first woman chairman of the L.C.C., the late Mrs. Lowe. As Home Secretary, I appointed the first woman stipendiary magistrate. I also appointed the first woman prison governor. After a splendid record like that with regard to the rights of women, how can I go into the Lobby and get mixed up with my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock in denying the right of women to sit in one of the Houses of Parliament? With respect, I think that it would be wrong for me to do so.
Therefore, in view of the traditions of the Labour Party and, with respect to my hon. Friend, the elementary principle of political equality as between men and women, I trust that, if the Amendment is pressed, the Committee will reject it.

Mr. Philip Bell: I confess that when I heard, through one of these leakages, that the audacious suggestion would be made that women should not be on an equality with men in the House of Lords, I determined to act as a St. George and slay the dragons who suggested it, even if they were my dearest colleagues. Hon. Members will imagine my horror when I found, if I may use the poetical expression, that the enslaved maidens had already embraced the dragon, for there are six of them on the Order Paper who are determined not to seek equality with men in the House of Lords.
I hope there are some, poetically speaking, enslaved maidens who are prepared to be rescued, who are prepared to ask for equality if the Bill is carried through. But why, I wondered, had these six enslaved maidens insisted upon this sex disqualification? It could not be—

Miss Lee: There are many more than six involved. These are just the first six.

Mr. Bell: I wondered why the six and the others, poetically speaking, enslaved maidens wanted to cling to this sex disqualification. In the debate, we have heard a lot about the general principle of the House of Lords but little about why, if we do have life peers, women should not be there. Nobody has given

the reason. It cannot be intellectual modesty. Even we men could not believe that. I wondered whether the women felt that their kind hearts might not match the coronets in the other place.

Mr. Benn: Is it not because, in the words of Gray's Elegy, my hon. Friend feels that
The lowing herd"—
might
wind slowly o'er the lea"?

Mr. Bell: The hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) made her views quite clear on Second Reading. She was against women going to the other place because she does not like the other place. That, however, has little to do with the Amendment. I should have thought that once the principle of life peerages was accepted one might as well, as has been done in other circles, infiltrate and Jo what one likes when one gets there. Yet there should be some reasons why the six and the other unknown people want to dissociate themselves—

Mrs. Jean Mann: As one of the six, may I prevent the hon. and learned Member from wasting a good deal of time wondering why we rejected what he calls exact equality? It is nothing of the kind. The House of Lords is a hereditary Chamber and it is proposed to give the women, not equality, but something that is considered by many to be much inferior: namely, life peerage.

Mr. Bell: I understand that point of view, although it has nothing to do with the Amendment. On the assumption that there are to be life peers—whether one likes that or not does not matter—the Amendment concerns solely the question of whether women should be life peers. It is as simple as that.
What I am trying to find out and suggesting that the House might consider is why the women do not want it. There may be one or two reasons. For instance, Lord Silkin in another place said, perhaps rather ominously, that he had heard that names, particularly of women, were already being canvassed for the other place. Perhaps that is why some hon. Members opposite are a little nervous about it. In addition, the hon. Member for Yardley (Mr. Usborne) said that he


approved of the House of Lords as somewhere to which we could send old warhorses out to grass. I am not, I assure her, thinking of the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock with her agricultural connections. At least, it is possible that some of the women Members opposite are getting a little nervous of being put out to grass.
Lord Ferrers, in the debate in the other place, gloomily prophesied that the other Chamber might be found a convenient parking place for the more rumbustious female elements of this House. It is a matter of opinion where we are to find the rumbustious female elements of this House. Lord Ferrers also was afraid that the other place might be made a repository for exuberant female politicians. I wonder whether this is the explanation? Is it that some women Members—the rumbustious and the exuberant—fear that the Whips on either side might get their own back and might be able to enforce even sterner discipline by threatening to translate the ladies to another place? Whereas, if they are not mentioned in this Bill, and if they cannot be put there, they will be a little more independent.
I do not know what are their reasons, because they have given us no reasons as to why they should be kept out. We take the view that once political equality is accepted, whether we like it or not, it must be part of our whole system. I do not see why the House of Lords should not have the benefit and the advantages of the counsel of women as we have it here, and I do not see why, by and large, they should not also have the fun.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: The Committee will hardly suspect hon. Members who support this Amendment—or as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) called them "dragons", among whom is the Welsh dragon—of being anti-feminist. Of course, we are in favour of doing away with sex discrimination, of course we are in favour of equality, and of course we deplore the fact that there is this institution whose doors are still closed to women.
I agreed with the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen. South (Lady Tweedsmuir), when she spoke about the contribution women have made to public

life. I also agreed with her when she said that it is not for us to assess the contribution which women Members have made to the House of Commons. Yet, without undue immodesty, we can recall at any rate some of the women Members of the past. We can recall the dialectical skill of Susan Lawrence and the redoubtable courage of Eleanor Rathbone, who was the pioneer of children's allowances in this country. Looking back at some of the women who have been in this House in the past, we have no cause to regret that they were called here.
At the same time, the noble Lady cannot present the Government to us as the champion of women's rights. If they were anxious to do away with sex discrimination, if they were anxious to give women equality, why did not they widen the scope of the Bill to include hereditary peeresses? Even the noble Lady asked that very question. I do not like hereditary peers or hereditary peeresses, but hon. Gentlemen opposite do. I thoroughly disapprove of the hereditary principle, except occasionally in the House of Commons. What I do say is that the attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite is completely and entirely illogical. What they are saying is that hereditary peers are all right but hereditary peeresses are not. That is not sex equality. That is in fact still sex discrimination. There is no getting away from it.
At any rate, some of the noble Lords who opposed this proposal said what they meant. For instance, there was Lord Glasgow who said that if women were allowed in the House of Lords, they would give up the one asset of the other place, namely, that it has been a place for men alone. He went on to say, speaking obviously with some considerable emotional stress:
This is about the only place left in the kingdom where men can meet without women. For heaven's sake, let us keep it like that"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords. 17th December, 1957; Vol. 206, c. 1216.]
He should take Hamlet's advice in reverse and get him to a monastery where he might be safe.
10.0 p.m.
That point of view is logical, although I cannot and do not agree with it. I am sorry to have to say that I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for


Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), who said that this issue should be considered apart from the Bill and on its own merits. We cannot do that. This is an essential and integral part of the Bill.
We are opposed to it, because it is in keeping with the whole purpose of the Bill, which is merely an attempt to make the House of Lords less of an anachronism than it is. That is the whole purpose. We believe that the creation of life peers and life peeresses is an attempt to give the other place a modern look, without in any way altering its essential character. To us that is the objectionable feature. The essential features remain absolutely unaltered—the fact that there will still be, whatever face may be put upon it, an overwhelming Conservative majority in the Chamber and that the membership will still be based on the hereditary principle, which is entirely and completely unacceptable to us on this side of the Committee.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): We still have a certain amount of business to do, but I realised that this would be an important Amendment, and I thought that it might be convenient if I intervened at this stage. I remind the Committee that we have one more substantive Amendment after this, and then a general discussion, and it would be very convenient if we could come to a conclusion on this Amendment within a reasonable time—provided that anybody who has a contribution to make has an opportunity to make it. I do not want to keep the Committee sitting too late, but I want to make progress with the Bill.
The hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) has put her case with characteristic vigour, but she met her match in the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) who informed her in no uncertain terms that he could not support the Amendment. The Committee must be aware that there is complete split among hon. Members opposite on this matter.

Mr. Ede: Mr. Ede indicated dissent.

Mr. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) shakes his head, but I remind him of

what the Leader of the Opposition said on this very matter of women being represented in the Upper House. He said that there were two principles—
… life peerages compared with hereditary peerages, and no discrimination between men and women in the membership of the House of Lords, there is obviously much to commend them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT 12th February, 1958; Vol. 582, c. 414.]
That shows that the hon. Lady is at variance, as is not uncommon with her family, with the leader of her own party.

Miss Lee: The discrimination does exist. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will answer the points which have been raised.

Mr. Butler: I shall deal in the latter part of my speech with the very learned arguments on which I have had a full briefing, aided by my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, and on the subject of hereditary peeresses I may have something to say which will be of interest to the Committee—perhaps I should have said my own researches aided by the advice of my right hon. and learned Friend.
In view of her approach to the hereditary element as a whole, I cannot regard the hon. Lady's approach to this matter of hereditary peeresses as being very sincere, but I will deal with it faithfully when I come to it. I want to deal with the proposal in this simple Bill, which has only one objective, which is to introduce the life element into the House of Lords, to allow women to have equality with men in this matter.
I have already quoted the Leader of the Opposition who disagrees with the hon. Lady. Now I come to the proposals of the 1948 conference of the Labour Party leaders. Although no agreement was reached, one of the principles adopted in the Report, which I have before me, was as follows:
Women should be capable of being appointed Lords of Parliament in like manner as men.
I then proceed to the Opposition in the House of Lords and find that Lord Alexander of Hillsborough said:
I would say … from my own experience, that women performing such duties in another place have fully justified the decision. …"—[OFFICAL REPORT, House of Lords, 17th December 1957; Vol. 206, c. 1228.]


He is in favour of it. I then come to Lord Attlee, who said:
The second merit of the Bill is the assertion of sex equality. I think that is quite right."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 5th December, 1957; Vol. 206, c. 861.]
The hon. Lady will see that however far we look among the ranks of her own leaders we find that they are in favour of sex equality and the principle enshrined in the Bill.
I now come to her real companions-in-arms, to whom reference was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir), namely, Lord Airlie and Lord Glasgow. Lord Airlie said—and since he is not a Member of the Government I am entitled to quote him—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]:
I am not going to give an analogy at the moment but if you put a cat in the bag and it does not want to come out, it is not an easy matter to deal with. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords. 3rd December. 1957: Vol. 206, c. 662.]

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Butler: If that is the argument upon which the hon. Lady relies, namely, that once we have put a cat in a bag we cannot get it out and therefore we cannot do this, she is relying upon an argument which does not do her justice, and when she relies further upon the argument of every noble Lord who spoke against the introduction of women in another place she will find that one of them said, in particular—and I have the details of his speech—that the objection of noble Lords to ladies sitting in another place was that they did not want to have them sitting opposite them.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: On a point of order. May I take it, Sir Gordon, that we are in order in referring to debates in the other place upon this matter?

The Deputy-Chairman: It is in order to refer to the debates, but it is not in order to quote noble Lords. It is possible to summarise their remarks.

Mr. Chapman: Erskine May makes it clear that one can quote from Committee proceedings in the House of Lords, and the matter being referred to by the right hon. Gentleman was in fact debated in Committee there.

The Deputy-Chairman: It can be referred to, but not quoted.

Mr. Chapman: Erskine May appears to give contrary advice. Perhaps the point can be looked into.

Mr. Butler: As the remarks that I have been making are completely consonant with your Ruling, Sir Gordon, and with the observations of Erskine May—and, in fact, with the findings of the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman)—I think that I can proceed. I did not quote in person the noble Earl to whom I was referring latterly, but I paraphrased his remarks, which it is perfectly in order for me to do. I must submit to the Ruling of the Chair, but I claim that it is in order to quote detailed proceedings when they are not Government pronouncements.

Mr. H. Morrison: Has not the right hon. Gentleman got it upside down? Is not it the case that we can quote a Minister's speech in the current Session of Parliament but we cannot quote the speeches of other peers? Whether it is possible to give some sort of impression of what they said I do not know; to some extent it depends upon the Chair.

The Deputy-Chairman: The position is correctly stated by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Herbert Morrison).

Mr. Butler: I am glad to be able to adjust my expression to suit the right hon. Member. As a matter of fact, I put it the wrong way round. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I do withdraw. I put it the wrong way round. It is possible to quote a Government statement, but not the details of the speech of a noble Lord in person. The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct; but that does not detract from the importance of what I am saying, namely, that the expression of opinion by a noble Lord that it is very difficult to sit with ladies in another place strikes me as a complete anachronism and absolutely wrong. The right hon. Member for Lewisham, South, is quite right in saying that it is quite out of date that any Chamber or institution today should not practise the doctrine of sex equality, and that women should not have an absolute right to go to the other place on the same basis as men.
I am surprised that the hon. Lady herself. together with the hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George), should have espoused


such a cause. I am surprised that the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill), who sits on the Front Opposition Bench, has not herself signed this Amendment, and I can only presume that her chairmanship of a variety of women's societies has caused her to refrain on this occasion from espousing the cause put by the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock herself.
I want to deal with the problem of the hereditary peeresses. It is a very difficult problem. The hereditary peeresses, as the hon. Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South said, number about 24. There are, I think, 15 or 16 for England and Wales, and seven or so peeresses for Scotland. About six of these are baronies by grant and the rest are baronies by writ, and what is important to get hold of first is that the baronies by grant were meticulously worded so as not to confer upon the family holder of any dignity the right of a seat, place and voice in the House of Lords. It was never intended in the case of holders of baronies by grant.
In the case of the others, the matter was decided, as hon. Members will remember, in the claim for Viscountess Rhondda in 1922. It was there made clear that a peerage held by a peeress in her own right was one to which, in law, the incident of exercising the right to receive a writ is not and never was attached. So we find the position that it was never intended that either peeresses by right or peeresses by baronies by grant should have the right to sit in the House of Lords. Therefore, there is no change in the position by the introduction of this Bill.
This Bill was not designed to enlarge this matter or to deal with it at all. The Bill was designed to deal with a particular matter, and that was to confer life seats upon men and women by equality. It was never designed to extend a hereditary peerage to women with a right of succession in another place.
I think that perhaps the best contribution on this matter was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South. She asked if we were to have a broader and better or bigger Bill to deal with this. That may well have to come. We may well be able to do so in a future incarnation, as my hon. Friend said, when

we are in power in the next Parliament: but I should like to answer the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South by saying that there is no intention whatever in the mind of the Government as at present constituted to promote any alternative proposal for the House of Lords than the one we have before us this evening.
The proposal for the House of Lords is, in the mind of the Government, a simple one. It is confined to this Bill, and, as confined to this Bill, it is simply the purpose of conferring a life peerage on men, and—not omitting women—conferring life peerages on women. We do not intend to enlarge upon that. If ever there is to be an enlargement of it, it must be in another Bill. There is no intention or plan at the present moment in our minds for any other Bill. That is the most clear answer I can give to the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South in reply to his question to me on this subject. What I am quite certain about is that to deal with the question of peeresses in their own right would be unsuitable in this Bill. This Bill is confined to one point.
In answer to the various Amendments of the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman), we have deliberately not enlarged this Bill. This Bill is not designed to confer any successive peerages as recommended by the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock. It is not designed as a kind of douceur for the Opposition or in a patronizing way. It is designed to try to enlarge the membership of the House of Lords in order to bring in further talent, and it is designed to make another place work more effectively. If the objective is to make another place work more effectively, it would be quite wrong to eliminate women from the right of being made peeresses for life.
Therefore, I commend the simplicity of this Measure to the Committee; namely, the conferment of life peerages and peerages for women on terms of equality with men. The other issues do not immediately arise, and we should deal with the Bill on its merits and in its present simplicity.

10.15 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White: I should not have intervened in this debate but for the remarks of the Leader of the House and of my right hon. Friend the


Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison). It is remarkable that so many women Members should object to this provision which at first glance one might suppose they would welcome. But we who object are agreed that it is because we feel that the Government are not sincere in this matter. We believe that we are being used as a "front organisation" as it might be called—[Laughter.] Those who are politically educated will understand that there are certain organisations which are ostensibly respectable and even progressive, but are used for nefarious purposes.
We believe that the inclusion of women in a Bill to which many of us take the strongest possible exception is, partly at any rate, in order to make the proposals of the Government appear much more respectable than they are. I hope my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South will sympathise with those of us who feel that in these circumstances women are being exploited; that we are being used to give an air of progressiveness and democracy to a Bill which is fundamentally neither progressive nor democratic.
It appears to me that had the Government been in earnest in their desire to confer complete equality on women, they would not have burked the issue of life peeresses. That could have been included in this Bill without in any way prejudging the more controversial matters of payment for peers, the powers of the other place, or even the composition of the other place. It seems to us quite illogical not to proceed with the matter of life peeresses, if one of the primary aims of the Government was to redress injustices committed against women.
It is true as was said by the Leader of the House that at the time when arrangements were made for certain peeresses in their own right, whether by grant or by writ, there was no intention at that time that they should sit in another place. Of course not, because the point of principle was not conceded. But that is no reason for not doing it now.
There is a great deal to be said for a matrilinear society. One finds in many primitive countries that a matriarchy gives one a much more stable community. I think there are strong arguments in favour of it. If one wishes to carry this

out logically, there is no reason why one should not have descent through the female line and to the eldest child, not necessarily the eldest son. But I do not wish to detain the House unnecessarily, I wish merely to make it perfectly clear that those of us supporting this Amendment do so because we feel that women are being used as an excuse, and it is not consonant with our self respect as women in public life that we should be included in this Bill in this way to give an air of respectability to something which we do not believe is a sincere attempt on the part of the Government to deal with this matter in a democratic way.

Mr. S. Silverman: So far the debate has proceeded on the basis that the effect of the Clause and of this subsection, if unamended, would be to enable life peeresses to sit and vote in the House of Lords. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) has attempted to delete subsection (3) because she believes it would have that effect. I know it is perfectly obvious that the Government believe that to apply that subsection would have the effect of enabling life peeresses to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Therefore, I advance my argument with very great diffidence, only because, with the best will in the world, I do not know the answer to it; yet, if my answer is right, subsection (3) is totally ineffective to produce the result which my hon. Friend would like to oppose.
In order to explain what I have in mind, it is necessary to look very shortly at the Bill, in the first place at any rate, and then to look at a number of other things. Subsection (3) says:
A life peerage may be conferred under this section on a woman.
So far so good. But that is not completely effective to confer a life peerage upon a woman. In order to give her the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords she must have something other than a patent of nobility. She must be not only a peer, as the right hon. Gentleman referred to in one part of his speech, but her entitlement must also include the right to receive a writ of summons to the House of Lords. If she has not got it, whether she is a peeress or not, she cannot go. It is precisely for that reason that Lady Rhondda's petition to the


Committee of Privileges of the House of Lords in 1922 failed.
In another part of the same Clause we read subsection (2), of which paragraph (b) says:
subject to subsection (4) of this section, to receive writs of summons to attend the House of Lords and sit and vote therein accordingly.
Subsection (3) enables the life peerage to be conferred on a woman who would therefore, subject to subsection (4) be entitled to receive the writ of summons. Subsection (4) says:
Nothing in this section shall enable any person to receive a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords, or to sit and vote in that House, at any time when disqualified therefor by law.
That is expressly preserved. If I am right in supposing, as I do suppose, that the reason why Lady Rhondda failed in her petition was that under common law a woman is not entitled to appear in or to sit in the House of Lords, or to receive a writ of summons, then it will be conceded that I have established my case. Where Lady Rhondda failed in her application was because she was not entitled by law because, and only because, she was a woman.
This is not one of the cases to which the right hon. Gentleman referred a few minutes ago where the letters patent which created the peerage themself excluded the right to receive a writ of summons. Lady Rhondda's father was the first created peer, and he received, and was entitled to receive, a writ of summons to the House of Lords. That writ would also extend to Lady Rhondda's heirs, but the right to receive the writ of summons was in abeyance during the period when Lady Rhondda held the peerage, because she was a woman. So much is clear.
Lady Rhondda claimed that Parliament had recently passed a Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act, in her submission to the House of Lords, and it was supported by a minority of four of the Committee of Privileges of the House of Lords. They included Lord Haldane and Lord Cave. Their argument was that while there had been, up to the passing of the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act, a common law prohibition of women being summoned to the House of Lords, that prohibition had been

removed by the Act. That was the submission she made, and on that her case rested. The House of Lords, however, decided that was not so. It decided it was not so because it said that while the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act removed an inhibition it did not create a right. That was because the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act said nobody should be prevented from exercising a public function by reason only of her sex. Now, says the House of Lords, this is not the exercise of a public function at all, therefore, the removal of that disqualification by Parliament does not confirm on Lady Rhondda the right that she had not got before.
The case of the Government and their supporters is that we are making a very important constitutional change. Therefore, I make no apologies even at this time of night for inquiring whether the change the Government are inviting us to make will in fact be made by the Bill before us. With many apologies, I intend to examine the matter as it was seen by the House of Lords and see how far it helps us to come to a conclusion here. It can all be summed up in one important judgment by Viscount Cave. One paragraph contains the whole matter, and I content myself with quoting it, although there is very much more in the judgment of the majority. Viscount Cave said:
My Lords, I think that this petition should fail, and on grounds which can be stated in a few sentences. In my opinion the common law gave no right or title to a peeress to sit in this House, or to receive a summons for that purpose. It was not the case of her having a right which she could not exercise. I think she had no right; for I agree with my noble and learned Friend, the Lord Chancellor …
that was Lord Birkenhead—
that a common law right to do something which the common law forbids to be done is a contradiction in terms. If that is so, then the patent certainly gave the petitioner no right to sit; and the Act of 1919, while removed all disqualifications, did not purport to confer any right. If the right to sit in this House is to be conferred on peeresses it must be by express words. I think, therefore, that the Committee are right in advising against the prayer of the petition.
I repeat the words:
If the right to sit in this House is to be conferred on peeresses it must be by express words.
That is because as the rest of the judgment showed, and Lord Cave himself showed, there is a common law principle which disentitles a woman to receive a


writ of summons in the House of Lords, which disentitlement has been decided by the House of Lords not to have been removed by the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act, 1919. If that is right, I am sure there must be some answer to this question. I have tried to find what the answer is and I have not succeeded. Nevertheless, I dare say there must be an answer and I think it should be given. If what I have said is right as to hereditary peeresses in their own right there is nothing to show that it does not apply to peeresses who are life peeresses. A disqualification in law remains and it is expressly preserved by subsection (4).

10.30 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I am most interested in my hon. Friend's argument, and I appreciate that what he is saying is designed to be helpful, but when he asks where are to be found the express words that overcome this common law provision, is not the answer that he finds them in Clause 1 (2)?

Mr. Silverman: I do not think so. Paragraph (b) begins by saying:
subject to subsection (4) of this section …
Subsection (4) preserves the common law disentitlement. I am sure that must be so. Subsection (4) says:
Nothing in this section shall enable any person to receive a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords and sit and vote therein
when disqualified by law.
The House of Lords decided that peeresses were disqualified by law from receiving such writs. That disqualification is expressly preserved by subsection (4). It seems to me, therefore, that subsection (3) does not carry out the purpose which the Government intended and which my hon. Friend feared. It seems that my hon. Friend is giving herself a great deal of unnecessary anxiety. I shall vote for her Amendment in order to be quite sure, but I think that if the Amendment is defeated life peeresses can be created just as life peers can be created, with the difference that the privilege which a life peer will have by statutory right of receiving his writ of summons will not apply to a life peeress.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: Not being a signatory to this Amendment and not agreeing with it, I feel that I must make some comment in order to give some backing to some of

my women colleagues on this side of the Committee who do not agree with it either. For the life of me I cannot see why when there is a suggestion, even though it does not fulfil the whole of the requirements of the point of view of certain hon. Members, we should not take advantage of the very small amendments that are being made as far as the House of Lords is concerned.
I quite agree that this is, perhaps, a sop in order that the major section of reform should not be carried out, but I find it very difficult indeed to explain to ordinary women who do not understand the peculiar legal finesse of debate in this Chamber how when there is a possibility of women being allowed to enter for the first time the only place from which they have been excluded up to date there should be any opposition from this side of the Committee.
The ordinary woman takes the view that the House of Commons exists for the purpose of making progress. For a long time now many women on this side of the Committee, as well as on the benches opposite, have been agitating for equal rights in every aspect of life. Therefore, when the last barrier is being broken down, even though it is being only half broken down, I cannot understand the opposition to the suggestion.
If I were making any selection, having listened for so long to the legal profession deciding which is the right point of view, I might say that there should be some exclusions of women from the House of Lords, that perhaps it would be advisable not to put any legal women in the House of Lords. It might be that if they went to the House of Lords there would be more disagreement than ever because they might not be able to agree with their male legal colleagues there just as members of the legal profession on either side of the House cannot agree with one another.
I know that there are several women outside the House of Commons who cannot aspire to come to here as elected representatives, but who could give some of their valuable knowledge to the House of Lords if they were sent there as life peeresses. Why should we be deprived of their knowledge and ability in all spheres of life because the Bill does not go the whole way to meet the objections of certain hon. Members on this side of the Committee? It does not seem logical.


I believe that women should have the right of entry into every section of the community, and if this is the last place, as it obviously is, where they have been unable up to now to fight their own way in, I am surprised that there should be any opposition, particularly from women, to women being allowed to take some of the responsibility and opportunities available.
Having heard the debate and having heard the points of view expressed, those hon. Ladies who have signed this Amendment should now recognise that the case in favour of the Amendment has been stated, and they should not complicate the explanation of this matter to the ordinary people outside the House. We in this Committee understand one another. We are able to participate in arguments as to why this or that should

or should not be done, but it is very difficult to explain to an ordinary woman outside the House why women, who have been agitating for so long for equal rights for women, should now, on an occasion of this sort, take exception to the granting of this privilege.

I have heard numerous Members speak about women being sent to the House of Lords. Speaking for myself, there will be no possibility of grabbing me for the House of Lords; nevertheless, this Amendment ought to be accepted so that those women who wish to play their part in the community should have the opportunity of being life peeresses.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 302, Noes 59.

Division No. 78]
AYES
[10.39 p.m


Agnew, Sir Peter
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Green, A.


Aitken, W. T.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Gresham Cooke, R.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Grimond, J.


Alport, C. J. M.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.


Arbuthnot, John
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Armstrong, C. W.
Cunningham, Knox
Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Ashton, H.
Davidson, viscountess
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Atkins, H. E.
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Deedes, w. F.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)


Baldwin, A. E.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Balniel, Lord
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M[...]A.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Barber, Anthony
Drayson, G. B.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Barter, John
du Cann, E. D. L.
Hastings, S.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Duncan, Sir James
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Duthie, W. S.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Beswick, Frank
Edelman, M.
Hesketh, R. F.


Bevins, J. B. (Toxteth)
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Bidgood, J.C.
Elliott,R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne,N.)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Biggs-Davison, J.A.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Hirst, Geoffrey


Bingham, R. M,
Errington, Sir Eric
Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Erroll, F. J.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Bishop, F. P.
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Holman, P.


Black, C. W.
Finlay, Graeme
Hope, Lord John


Body, R. F.
Fisher, Nigel
Hornby, R. P.


Boothby, Sir Robert
Fletcher, Eric
Horobin, Sir Ian


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Forrest, G.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Fort, R.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Foster, John
Howard, John (Test)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.Col. W. H.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Howell, Denis (All Saints)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Freeth, Denzil
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.


Bryan, P.
Gammans, Lady
Hulbert, Sir Norman


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Hurd, A. R.


Butler, Rt. Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)


Carr, Robert
Gibson-Watt, D.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh W.)


Channon, Sir Henry
Glover, D.
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Godber, J. B.
Hyde, Montgomery


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Goodhart, Philip
Hy[...]on-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry


Cole, Norman
Gough, C. F. H.
Iremonger, T. L.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Gower, H. R.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)


Cooke, Robert
Graham, Sir Fergus
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Cooper, A. E.
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)




Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Mayhew, C. P.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Jones, Fit. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Joseph, Sir Keith
Moore, Sir Thomas
Speir, R. M.


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, w.)


Kaberry, D.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir p. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Kimball, M.
Nairn, D. L. S.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Kirk, p. M.
Neave, Airey
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Lagden, G. W.
Nicholls, Harmar
Storey, S.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Leather E. H. C.
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan
Summers, Sir Spencer


Leburn, W. G.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Oakshott, H. D.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Teeling, W.


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Temple, John M.


Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Osborne, C.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Llewellyn, D. T.
Page, R. G.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr.R.(Croydon, S.)


Longden, Gilbert
Partridge, E.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Peel, W. J.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


McAdden, S. J.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


MacColl, J. E.
Pitman, I. J.
Usborne, H. C.


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Vane, W. M. F.


McKibbin, Alan
Price, David (Eastieigh)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire W.)


McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Profumo, J. D.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Ramsden, J. E.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Rawlinson, Peter
Wall, Patrick


Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)
Redmayne, M.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Remnant, Hon. P.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Maddan, Martin
Renton, D. L. M.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W.(Horncastle)
Ridsdale, J. E.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Roper, Sir Harold
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Russell, R. S.
Wood, Hon. R.


Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Sharples, R. C.
Woollam, John Victor


Marshall, Douglas
Shepherd, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Mr. Wills and


Mawby, R. L.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Mr. Brooman-White


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Skeffington, A. M.





NOES


Awbery, S. S.
Hale, Leslie
Owen, W. J.


Baird, J.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Paget, R. T.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Parkin, B. T.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Rankin, John


Bowles, F. G.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Redhead, E. C.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jenkins, Roy (S[...]echford)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Collins, V.J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Ross, William


Craddock, George-(Bradford, S.)
King, Dr. H. M.
Short, E. W.


Crossman, R. H. S,
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Lewis, Arthur
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Logan, D. G.
Stonehouse, John


Delargy, H. J.
McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Diamond, John
McInnes, J.
Swingler, S. T.


Donnelly, D. L.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Timmons, J.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mahon, Simon
Wigg, George


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mikardo, Ian
Zilliacus, K.


Foot, D. M.
Monslow, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Car'then)
Moody, A. S.
Mrs. White and Mr. Snow


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Moyle, A.



Griffiths, William (Exchange)
O'Brien, Sir Thomas

Mr. R. A. Butler: I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
10.49 p.m.
I move the Motion formally in order to explain the situation and because I


should like to say that, on examining our work this evening, I think it would be most satisfactory from the point of view of the Committee as a whole that we should finish the Committee stage of the Bill tonight, in which case I would not ask the Committee to insist upon having the Third Reading taken tonight and resuming as a House.
This course would leave an opportunity for any general discussion when we take the Third Reading. It would also mean that we would deal with one more Amendment tonight, and with the Question that the Clause stand part of the Bill immediately afterwards. If, as I believe, that is a sensible proposal at this late hour, it would allow us to complete detailed discussion tonight and to have the general discussion on Third Reading.

Sir Frank Soskice: Speaking for myself, I think that what the right hon. Gentleman has said would assist the conduct of our discussion. As I understand his proposal, we should deal with the next Amendment to be called and then when the Question that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill, is put, although we could vote upon it, we should not discuss it, this being on the understanding that we should have an opportunity at a later date of having a full discussion on Third Reading so that those of my hon. Friends who have strong objections would have an ample opportunity of emphasising and restating them, as they think necessary.
On that understanding, I would recommend my hon. Friends, if they think the proposal agreeable, to accept it.

Mr. Butler: The only difference between the right hon. and learned Gentleman and myself is that it is actually Clause 1, the substantive Clause, which is now before us. The only other possible re-definition I would suggest relates to the word "ample". I would prefer to use the word "discussion", because I think that we have ventilated this subject. All we want is a reasonable time for Third Reading, which we can discuss through the usual channels. I think that that is a perfectly reasonable request, and I should like reasonable time for that. We could then finish our work tonight.

Mr. Ede: The right hon. Gentleman expects to get the Question that the Clause stand part of

the Bill, decided tonight, without discussion, on the assumption—which, I think, is fairly safe—that the discussion of that Question and the Third Reading of the Bill are really one and the same thing in the peculiar circumstances of this case.

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. Those of us who studied the Bill thought that the case was exactly as the right hon. Gentleman expressed it, namely, that there would be one general discussion, whether it took place on the Question that the Clause stand part of the Bill, or on Third Reading. I suggest postponing the general discussion until Third Reading and taking the Question tonight formally.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): The next Amendment selected is the last one in the name of the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman), in page 1, line 23, omitting the words after "therein".

Mr. Chapman: I beg to move, in page 1, line 23, at the end to add:
(6) Her Majesty shall have power, on receipt of an Address, in such form as may be prescribed, from a person on whom a life peerage has been conferred under this section, to revoke the letters patent relating to his peerage, and he shall thereafter no longer be entitled to rank as a baron or to receive writs of summons to attend the House of Lords and sit and vote therein.
I am greatly obliged to you, Sir Gordon, and to your predecessor in the Chair for allowing me to move the Amendment in an altered form, because it would have been out of order, I understand, if those words had been left in.
The Amendments which I have moved earlier today have led to some entertainment in the Committee. I hope that the Government realise that what is providing the entertainment arises from their refusal to do a thoroughgoing reform of the House of Lords. It has been an objectionable Bill, and objections to one part or another of it have been expressed on all sides. If the Government had the courage to introduce something more thoroughgoing, they would not have had the ridicule which has been heaped on the Bill.
This Amendment is the most serious of all. If the Government are so misguided as to resist it, I hope that my


right hon. and hon. Friends will support me in the Division Lobby in favour of it. This is a most serious Amendment, and I should have thought that in many ways it was a most acceptable Amendment to everybody, including the Government themselves. Its purpose is very simple. It is to allow a life peer to resign from the job, if he so wishes. In a form which is prescribed, he can submit an address to Her Majesty asking her to revoke the letters patent relating to his peerage and, if Her Majesty agrees, he will thereupon cease to be a life peer.
This is the simple proposition of the right of resignation. Why should this power of resignation be given to those ladies and gentlemen who take life peerages in the near future? The first and most obvious reason is that we hope, and everybody expects, that it will not be very long—a matter of a decade or so—before we have a thorough-going reform of the House of Lords and the substitution of a second chamber of some different design on a more courageous pattern of reform.
It should appeal to right hon. and hon. Members opposite that, ready for that eventuality, the members of the Lords as at present constituted should be able to resign in the event of the advent of a more thorough-going scheme of reform. The most honest purpose of the Bill has been that it is to help the Lords out of a difficult situation for the time being. Once that situation has passed and there is a better reform of the Lords generally, the men and women who take on the job of being life peers should have the opportunity, if they so wish, of being able to resign their life peerages, instead of having to hang on to them.
The second reason why this is an eminently reasonable Amendment is that there may be men to take on the job of a life peerage who find, as time progresses, that they are unsuited to the work of the Lords. In the words of the Government, the whole idea behind the Bill is to make some innovations in the kind of people who are members of the House of Lords, to draw from a wider circle and to find new and different kinds of people. In this experimentation, it may be that the people who undertake the work of life peers, which carries with it, at least by implication, the duty to work in the House of Lords, will find as time goes on

that they are more unsuited than suited to that work and would prefer an opportunity to resign.
A third eminently suitable reason is that if we are to make these innovations in the kind of people who are to be members of the House of Lords, it should be possible for some of these life peers who prove to be successful in the work and who prove to be good leaders in the House of Lords to get into at any rate junior posts in the Government. Those who ought to be leaders in a Government ought to be able to resign their seat in the Lords and, if need be, stand for the House of Commons.
I have never understood the argument that once a man is in the House of Lords he should be there permanently—especially when he is only a life peer—and unable at some time which may be convenient to the whole community to sit in the House of Commons. In resisting this sort of Amendment in another place, the Lord Chancellor said that they would have made their bed and must lie on it and that if they accepted the job of life peers they should continue in it. I do not see that argument, because that is precisely what we do not do in reverse. We never say that anyone who has got into the Commons must stay here and never go to the House of Lords. Indeed, it often happens that people in the Commons eventually end up in the Lords. I cannot see why the argument should apply the other way round here, when it is never applied in that way regarding translation from the Commons to the Lords.
I consider this Amendment eminently reasonable. I do not think that we are suggesting anything outrageous, or anything that harms the main purpose of the Bill and its limited nature as expounded by the Government.
11.0 p.m.
If my Amendment is accepted, there still remains the question to be decided about what is to happen to a peer who resigns his life peerage. Does he become a commoner, and is he entitled to sit and vote in the House of Commons? As originally drafted, my Amendment would have taken care of that matter. I am given to understand that, because of the limited nature of the Bill, the Amendment in that form would have been out of order. But I say to the Attorney-General that, if the Committee accept


this Amendment as it has been moved, I think it will be implicit that the Committee desires that this legal disqualification should be removed and that the peer who resigns his life peerage should be allowed to vote in Parliamentary elections and sit in the House of Commons.
Whether that would call for legislation or whether the Long Title of this Bill could be altered to achieve that, I do not know. But, if the spirit of my Amendment is accepted, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that the final words should be regularised at some convenient point to allow a peer who resigns his life peerage to come to the House of Commons. In that spirit of eminent reasonableness, I commend this Amendment. I believe it is not unacceptable to many hon. Members opposite, and I hope that, for the first time this evening, the Government will accept an Amendment from me.

The Attorney-General: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I reply straight away to the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman). As the time is getting on, I hope he will not think it discourteous if I reply shortly and deal with the three propositions he has advanced. I shall disappoint him by saying that I must advise the Committee not to accept this Amendment. In my opinion, it would be unreasonable to accept it and make a radical change in the character of the House of Lords going far beyond what is contemplated in this Bill. Indeed, it would be a change in our Constitution if, by this Measure, we provided that people going to the House of Lords as life peers could come back to this House and perhaps go back again to the House of Lords and so on ad infinitum.
The hon. Gentleman's Amendment is not limited to the cases he illustrated in his argument. This is a general proposition, and I think it is an objectionable one. This is not a case where anyone is compelled by inheritance to become a peer; it is a case where a life peerage is voluntarily accepted. If any man or woman accepts a life peerage, surely it is right that it should be on the basis that they will remain a member of the House of Lords and renounce all desire to join our most attractive assembly here. That is one reason—and

in my submission it is a very strong one—why the Amendment should not be accepted.
The hon. Member mentioned three reasons for moving it. He said that life peers should be able to resign if, on further reform of the House of Lords, that appeared desirable. That question could be left until further proposals for reform came before both Houses.

Mr. Chapman: Many people who might accept the job for the time being would like to be assured of that in advance. I am not thinking of particular individuals, but that question might obviously weigh with them.

The Attorney-General: It might, and it might not. I would have thought that those who were offered life peerages would understand from the very use of language that they were being offered peerages for life which they could either accept to reject. That is the answer to the second proposition of the hon. Member.
He put forward the argument—with which I have already dealt—that if the Amendment were accepted it would be possible for life peers to hold junior administrative posts in the House of Lords and then, if they wanted promotion, to stand for election to the House of Commons. I doubt whether that would be a good thing, particularly for life peers. Certainly such a proposal goes far beyond the intention of the Bill.
Enough has been said today about what the Bill is intended to do, and perhaps enough has been said in criticism, but in conclusion I would say that I do not think that the Bill can be improved by the acceptance of the hon. Member's Amendment. I therefore hope that he will not think that I am guilty of any discourtesy in not prolonging my advice to the Committee that it should reject the Amendment.

Mr. Usborne: I have heard that it is possible that this matter will be regarded by my Front Bench as one which the party is expected to support. If this is so, it is necessary for me to say a few words about it. I am not at all happy about it. At first sight it would seem reasonable to suppose that if a man were elevated as a life peer to sit in the other place and, as the years went by, became incompetent and unfit to carry out his duties, there should be some way by


which he could relinquish his post, resign his writ of summons, and in particular give up the remuneration which, although we do not often say so, we all know will have to be paid to working peers.
At first sight it seems reasonable that if a man cannot do his job and earn his pay it should be possible for him to ask not to be summoned and not to take his pay. But it is never impossible for him to refuse his pay—and even if he receives the Writ I suppose that he does not have to turn up at the House of Lords.
My second objection is to the tone in which my hon. Friend moved his Amendment. He seemed to believe that it should be a democratic privilege of a man who had become a Parliamentary alderman, working without being elected to another part of the building, virtually to resign his aldermanic seat and seek election, as an ordinary, democratic individual, to the lower House. One of the things that are said about the upper House is that it consists of gentlemen who are free to say exactly what they believe, without fear or favour, because they are in no way beholden to the electorate.
This may be a double-edged sword. I can imagine the possibility of a charlatan making great use of the publicity he obtains in the other House by resigning his seat there and seeking a seat in this House. If a life peer is unable to do his job and earn his money, I do not think that he should lose his title and be able to seek a seat in this House.

The Chairman (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I only selected the Amendment on the ground that the last two lines were left out. The last two lines are not before the Committee.

Mr. Usborne: I am sorry if I went a little too far. In that case, in view of the lateness of the hour, I will not continue my speech.

Major Sir Frank Markham: I will be brief. I hope that the Attorney-General will have another look at this Amendment, which I regard as useful. Many of us want to see the House of Lords a much more efficient body, and one way of making it so is to give a life peer an opportunity of resigning when he feels no longer capable of carrying out his duties. It is said that this would be a constitutional change of some magnitude, yet we have only recently faced up to this very question. I see no reason why we should not do the same for life peers. Members of the House of Lords should have the right to apply for the equivalent of the Chiltern Hundreds.

Mr. Chapman: I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham). If the Government are to do a proper reform of the House of Lords, they will have to accept the right of peers to resign. The power of resignation in legislative bodies is well established. I hope that the Government will see that it has to come.
Tht Attorney-General said that we did not want chopping and changing. There is a very simple answer: no Prime Minister is likely to recommend anybody for a second peerage, in those circumstances. He put up this objection as an Aunt Sally, knowing that no Prime Minister would do something so stupid as conniving at making a mockery of the whole situation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument bordered on the ridiculous.
I am very disappointed. This is an eminently reasonable proposition, which will have to come one day. Owing to the poor support given to it, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 268, Noes 199.

Division No. 79.]
AYES
[11.15 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Baldwin, A. E.
Bishop, F. P.


Aitken, W. T.
Balniel, Lord
Black, C. W.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Barber, Anthony
Body, R. F.


Alport, C. J. M.
Barter, John
Bossom, Sir Alfred


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Boyle, Sir Edward


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Arbuthnot, John
Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry


Armstrong, C. W.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Brooman-White, R. C.


Ashton, H.
Bidgood, J. C.
Bryan, P.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.


Atkins, H. E.
Bingham, R. M.
Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden)>


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Carr, Robert




Channon, Sir Henry
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Howard, John (Test)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian(Hendon, N.)


Cole, Norman
Hughes, Haliett, Vice-Admiral J.
Osborne, C.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Page, R. G.


Cooke, Robert
Hurd, A. R.
Partridge, E.


Cooper, A. E.
Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)
Peel, W. J.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark(E'b'gh, W.)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Hyde, Mon[...]gomery
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Pitman, I. J.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Iremonger, T. L.
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cunningham, Knox
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Gurrie, G. B. H.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Davidson, Viscountess
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Profumo, J. D.


D'Avigdor-Goldsmld, Sir Henry
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Rawlinson, Peter


Deedes, W. F.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Redmayne, M.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Remnant, Hon. P.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Kaberry, D.
Renton, D. L. M.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Kerby, Capt, H. B.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Drayson, G. B.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


du Cann, E. D. L.
Kimball, M.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Duncan, Sir James
Kirk, P. M.
Roper, Sir Harold


Duthie, W. S.
Lagden, G. W.
 Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Russell, R. S.


Elliot[...],R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne,N.)
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Leather, E. H. C.
Sharples, R. C.


Errington, Sir Eric
Leburn, W. G.
Shepherd, William


Erroll, F. J.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Finlay, Graeme
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Fisher, Nigel
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Forrest, G.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Speir, R. M.


Fort, R.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)


Foster, John
Longden, Gilbert
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdals)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Freeth, Denzil
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Gammans, Lady
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
McAdden, S. J.
Storey, S.


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Macdonald, Sir peter
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Glover, D.
McKibbin, Alan
Studholme, Sir Henry


Godber, J. B.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Goodhart, Philip
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Summer, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Gough, C. F. H.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Gower, H. R.
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Teeling, W.


Graham, Sir Fergus
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Temple, John M.


Grant, W. (Woodside)
Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.(Nantwich)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Green, A.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Maddan, Mar[...]in
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Thornton-Kemsley, sir Colin


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Marshall, Douglas
Vane, W. M. F.


Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Mawby, R. L.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere(Macclesf'd)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Wall, Patrick


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Moore, Sir Thomas
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Hesketh, R. F.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Nairn, D. L. S.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Neave, Airey
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Nicholls, Harmar
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hobson,John(Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Wood, Hon. R.


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan
Woollam, John Victor


Hope, Lord John
Nugent, G. R. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hornby, R. P.
Oakshott, H. D.
Mr Edward Wakefield and


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Mr Gibson-Watt.


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)






NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Balfour, A.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E
Awbery, S. S.
Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Baird, J.
Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)







Beswick, Frank
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Pargiter, G. A.


Blackburn, F.
Holman, P.
Parker, J.


Blenkinsop, A.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Parkin, B. T.


Boardman, H.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Peart, T. F.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hoy, J. H.
Pentland, N.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Prentice, R. E.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bowles, F. G.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Boyd, T. C.
Hunter, A. E.
Probert, A. R.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Proctor, W. T.


Brockway, A. F.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Randall, H. E.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Redhead, E. C.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Be[...]per)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Reeves, J.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Rhodes, H.


Burke, W. A.
Jeger, Mrs.Lena(Holbn &amp; St.Pncs,S.)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Callaghan, L. J.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Carmichael, J.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Champion, A. J.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Ross, William


Chapman, W. D.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Short, E. W.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Coldrick, W.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
King, Dr. H. M.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Lawson, G. M.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Skeffington, A. M.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Cronin, J. D.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Snow, J. W.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lewis, Arthur
Sorensen, R. W.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Lindgren, G. S.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Logan, D. G.
Sparks, J. A.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Steele, T.


Delargy, H. J.
McCann, J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Diamond, John
MacColl, J. E.
Storehouse, John


Dodds, N. N.
MacDermot, Niall
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Donnelly, D. L.
McGhee, H. G.
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John(W. Brmwch)
McInnes, J.
Swingler, S. T.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McKay, John (Wal[...]send)
Sylvester, G. O.


Edelman, M.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Edwards, Rt. Hon, John (Brighouse)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mahon, Simon
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mason, Roy
Thornton, E.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mayhew, C. P.
Tomney, F.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mellish, R. J.
Watkins, T. E.


Finch, H. J.
Messer, Sir F.
Weitzman, D,


Fletcher, Eric
Mikardo, Ian
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Foot, D. M.
Mitchison, G. R.
West, D. G.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Monslow, W
Wheeldon, W. E.


George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Car'then)
Moody, A. S.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Gibson, C. W.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Wigg, George


Greenwood, Anthony
Moss, R.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Grey, C. F.
Moyle, A.
Willey, Frederick


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mulley, F. W.
Williams, David (Neath)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Grimond, J.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hale, Leslie
O'Brien, Sir Thomas
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Oliver, G. H.
Woof, R. E.


Hannan, W.
Oram, A. E.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Oswald, T.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Hayman, F. H.
Paget, R. T.
Zilliacus, K.


Healey, Denis
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Deer.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

WAYS AND MEANS [19th March]

Resolution reported,

AGRICULTURE

That it is expedient to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of penalties which under any Act of the present Session relating to agriculture are recoverable for breaches of conditions imposed in connection with the

giving of consent to the operation of notices to quit agricultural holding or parts of agricultural holdings.

Resolution agreed to.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SUPERANNUATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Draft National Health Service (Superannuation) (Amendment) Regulations, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th February, be approved.—[Mr. R. Thompson.]

11.25 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: I should like to ask one question about these Regulations. This is a narrow point but it has the support of all those who are interested in superannuation problems. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health will recollect that some two years ago it was understood that when the next superannuation Regulations were brought before the House some other matters would be dealt with, and I should like an assurance that if those matters are not covered by these present Regulations they will be dealt with very quickly.
It would not be in order to discuss them now, but I should like to know if my hon. Friend remembers a deputation on behalf of the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Midwives to my right hon. and learned Friend's predecessor who is now Minister of Labour and National Service. I should like to know whether we are likely to have Regulations or an Order embodying the points which were discussed then, which are matters affecting human problems and human lives.

11.27 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Richard Thompson): I appreciate my hon. Friend's anxiety that the matter in connection with which she led a deputation a couple of years ago should be settled to her satisfaction. All I would say is that the review which we then undertook to carry out is indeed in hand. I am hopeful that it will not be long before we may be able to formulate some proposals in this connection, and when the time arrives we shall be able to consult the Royal College of Nursing which is the interest which my hon. Friend has in mind.
A lot of actuarial calculation is involved in this matter, and until that has been completed we shall not be in a position to make any proposals at all, but I assure her that the matter is going ahead and we are doing our best.

Dame Irene Ward: I am obliged.

Question put and agreed to.

PEDESTRIAN CROSSING, WATFORD

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wills.]

11.28 p.m.

Mr. Farey-Jones: This is the first time since I became a Member of this House that I have introduced a subject on the Adjournment. I like to say that however many times it may happen again, I shall never raise a matter with greater anxiety or more concern than I do at the moment.
The matter to which I wish to direct attention is that of the lack of a pedestrian crossing in the St. Albans Road, south of Garston Lane, Watford. This is a matter of extremely grave anxiety and concern to the Borough of Watford as a whole, and it has caused anxiety for the last four vears.
From 7th July, 1954, to the present time, and especially during the last few weeks, the Borough of Watford has made five separate representations to the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation on this matter. The operative dates of those applications are 7th July, 1954, 21st June, 1955, 28th January. 1957, 30th August, 1957, and now there is this latest application.
This St. Albans Road in and out of Watford is well known not only in and about Watford but in Hertfordshire as a whole as a black spot, and the point at which we want the crossing is probably one of the blackest of all the black spots on the roads of the whole country. It is at the most critical danger point on this road, with its long and extremely black record.
Repeatedly over the last four years the Ministry of Transport has consistently refused to grant a crossing. The Ministry has applied a rough rule-of-thumb method of refusing the application for the crossing, based purely on the alleged traffic at a given time of test. The matter has now become one of such grave public anxiety as to produce a petition signed by more than 1,200 parents of children who are daily compelled to cross this extremely terrifying road. The petition is supported by the Town Council, its Highways Committee and its Road


Safety Committee, and all the other public bodies; and even the Chief Superintendent of the Police is 100 per cent. with the Corporation. One must bear in mind that the councillors on these committees give freely of their spare time in public service. They are completely unanimous on this matter.
The only support which my right hon. Friend the Minister has been able to obtain is from outside the town, and that is the support of the Chief Superintendent of the County Police, who is, from the point of this argument, entirely remote from this subject as he does not dwell in the division and cannot possibly be familiar with the problems of the local populace.
Since this matter was first mooted the Garston estate has come fully into being and the new Meriden estate is now two-thirds constructed. The situation grows steadily and daily worse. We therefore have the position that the entire body of responsible citizens of Watford, the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor, the aldermen and councillors, all their freely elected representatives on both sides, all the citizens who give of their best mentally and physically to the common good have been for at least four years of one single mind, that this pedestrian crossing is not only necessary but vital.
Furthermore, a few days ago the Mayor and Deputy Mayor and the aldermen of the Council, the Town Clerk and the Member for Watford had the unique responsibility of presenting to the Minister a petition signed by a vast number of local residents signifying the extreme fear and apprehension of the local population and stressing that the provision of this crossing should no longer be delayed. I should like to convey to the Minister the Council's appreciation of his courtesy in receiving the deputation and thanks for such consideration as has since been given to the purport of the delegation's representations.
Now I come to the essential gist of this matter. In spite of all these years of continuous effort, propaganda, toil and research the Minister in his letter dated 4th March has once again turned down this application, and that has caused complete dismay and consternation not only to the Council but the citizenry of Watford as a whole. It is particularly regrettable that the Minister has seen fit once again to endorse his divisional road engineer's decision that a pedestrian crossing is not

wanted and has followed the time-honoured, bureaucratic device of saying that the matter will come up for consideration again in twelve months' time. The situation is so unbelievably ridiculous that it is almost fantastic. It is almost impossible to believe, that in 1958 some little tin god of a bureaucrat, however eminent, can set at naught the considered and justified opinions of the responsible bodies and citizens in a proud and worthy borough such as Watford.
As has been stated week after week in the local papers, and even in the county Press, this is bureaucracy and bumbledon gone mad. It is the very negation of modern democracy and is completely contrary to the established principles of British public life. The Minister will know only too well that it is the little things which control our lives and which are of paramount importance. It is inconceivable to me that some unknown official in Whitehall, provided that he can retain the support of his Minister, can bring about this state of affairs.
No one realises more than I do the urgent desire of a Minister to be loyal to his staff, but when a matter reaches such a state of perversity and foolishness as this, surely loyalty to principles for which we all stand, and to which a Conservative Government in particular are supposed to adhere, and on which the Tory Party is built, should come first. Is it not utterly foolish for the Government to give greater responsibility and power to local authorities in other ways while at the same time an anomaly such as this is allowed to survive even for five minutes longer than is necessary?
I have never been a subscriber to the idea that "the gentleman in Whitehall knows best." I am deeply aware that in this instance the unknown gentleman in Whitehall daily causes increasing fear to hundreds of parents. The record of this road is so disastrous that I will not weary the House at this late hour by quoting it. The situation is almost impossible at week-ends. In order to assess the situation, I have frequently visited the spot and have there been held up for as long as twenty minutes or a half-hour, particularly at times when the factories open or close for the day and the traffic sweeps out onto the St. Albans Road.
I ask that this matter be treated essentially as a matter of local responsibility.


The Joint Parliamentary Secretary may reply with the futile argument which the Minister has already submitted to me in writing. I appreciate that the Minister and the Joint Under-Secretary have done and are doing a wonderful job in the Ministry, but I beg them not to allow established principles and rule-of-thumb procedures to lead this situation to continue in being any longer. If my hon. Friend's reply to me is inclined to be negative, I hope that he will not reply at all. I beg him to survey this whole position again in order that the section of his Department concerned shall not fall into contumely and contempt or, even worse, in order that this sad and sorry matter shall not result in a tragedy which none of us would be able to forgive.

11.39 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R.H. Nugent): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Farey-Jones) on securing the Adjournment debate tonight so that he could raise this important matter affecting his constituency. Although I am afraid that I am unable to agree with a good deal of what he said, I congratulate him upon the eloquence and strength with which he made out his case. Certainly his constituents can have the comfort that their case has lacked nothing in the way in which it has been put over tonight.
I hope that the arguments which I must advance to justify our position will not strike my hon. Friend's ears as being completely futile. There really is weight in them. I sympathise with the feelings of the people of Watford, as I often have to sympathise with people's feelings in other constituencies when we are not able to agree with requests for pedestrian crossings, 30 mile-an-hour limits, or other regulations for the use of the road. Naturally, the local people know their local conditions best, and they think that they know, therefore, where these regulations should best be applied.
The fact is that, even with such a simple device as a pedestrian crossing, there is a national aspect of policy for which we are responsible. This, indeed, is why Parliament has charged my right hon. Friend with that responsibility and not passed it to local authorities to deal

with. We must have regard to our responsibility in the matter if we are to look after the general interests of road safety throughout the country. I beg my hon. Friend not to write off our resistance to his requests as being bureaucratic, wooden or unsympathetic, or think that our official, the divisional road engineer, has been unimaginative or unreceptive. He is carrying out our policy, and, as I shall explain in a moment, it is a policy which, in this particular context, is a sensible one.
Pedestrian crossings are only markings on the road. They do not physically divide pedestrians from vehicles. A pedestrian crossing is a device to improve the safety of pedestrians crossing the road. The conflict in the problem of road usage—which we were discussing last night—is with us all the time, and there is no complete solution to it except segregation at different levels, pedestrians crossing the road by a bridge or an under-pass so that they cross at a level different from that used by the traffic. If people are to cross on the surface by pedestrian crossings, one must accept that such crossings will work effectively only if the conditions are right. By hard experience, we have learned during the last quarter of a century in which conditions pedestrian crossings will work and in which conditions they will not work.
However much local opinion may demand that there should be a pedestrian crossing in some particular place, if we agreed to put them down against our better judgment we should not be doing a good service to the people in the locality or to anyone else. We should simply be debasing the currency of pedestrian crossings. There are certain minimum conditions which must be satisfied, both in the flow of traffic which must be such as to justify a pedestrian crossing on the road, and in the amount of pedestrian use necessary to ensure reasonable observance. Those are essential conditions precedent to our establishing a pedestrian crossing on a road.
The history of pedestrian crossings fully bears out the point I am making. When they were introduced by Leslie Hore-Belisha in the early 'thirties, they started by being rare; they quickly multiplied all over the country until, finally, by the end of the 'forties, there were


simply thousands of them everywhere. The more there were, the less were they observed. A state was reached when there was precious little safety for pedestrians who decided to use them. Motorists found the crossings everywhere; they felt frustrated; they found many which were hardly used at all. The result was that observance became worse and worse.
The Government of the day, our predecessors, took their courage in their hands and. in 1951, introduced an Order which drastically reduced, by two-thirds, the total number of pedestrian crossings throughout the country. Of course, there was an outcry. Every local authority said that it must have this or that crossing, but, in the event, the crossings had to go, until their number had been reduced to one third of what it had been, and the new zebra markings were then introduced.
The result has been that in the past eight or nine years we have had very much better observance of pedestrian crossings, particularly now that the crossings are limited to those which are really needed and which are heavily used and which motorists know will be in fairly continuous use throughout the day. I do not justify every single one. Inevitably, in the process of cutting down the numbers to one third, local authorities had to be allowed to take their choice of which crossings they would keep, and they have not always been the right ones.
However, in the main, those which exist today are heavily used and far better observed. Motorists watch out for pedestrians on them and give right of way to pedestrians who start to cross on them. The result is that the crossings give a valuable measure of safety to the individual pedestrian when he is crossing.
That little history is indelibly marked in our minds and hearts and any Minister of Transport or Parliamentary Secretary who allowed pedestrian crossings to proliferate again after that experience, would not be worth the ground he stood on. We must be extremely restrained and economical about allowing any fresh pedestrian crossings anywhere. Although there is a local interest and we always pay close attention to what local people say, we must have regard to national considerations as well. If we do not do so, not only will the worth of many

pedestrian crossings go down, because they would not be properly observed through not being used at all times, but, because of the proliferation, we would be back in the position in which we were before where we would have debased the currency so that the value of pedestrian crossings would be lost to everybody.
I have to confirm what my hon. Friend has said, that there has been a long and unhappy history to this matter. The Watford Borough Council has made plea after plea that it should be allowed a crossing. As my hon. Friend said, he recently brought a delegation to see my right hon. Friend and he also produced a petition with 1,200 signatures. Despite that, my right hon. Friend felt that he could not agree.
I admit straight away that the St. Albans Road carries a fairly heavy volume of traffic, on average, 700 vehicles per hour as well as 120 cycles per hour. There are frequent bus services and bus stops on both sides of the road at the point at which it is sought to put a pedestrian crossing.
The pedestrian traffic from the main residential area is on the same side as the shops, but I accept that there is a small estate on the west and that residents there have to cross the road to get to the shopping side. Despite that, our observations are that pedestrians do not cross at this point in sufficient numbers to justify a pedestrian crossing. I recognise that the traffic volume is growing and is approaching the level at which, if there were a sufficient volume of pedestrians crossing, we would accept that a crossing should be considered.
The whole matter turns on the volume of pedestrians crossing and we find that that is not enough, although there may be a heavy volume of pedestrians crossing at certain periods. It is necessary to have a fair volume of pedestrians crossing throughout the day if we are to have crossings reasonably observed by motorists.
The Divisional Road Engineer for the Metropolitan area, who is a very experienced official, has given a great deal of care and thought to this matter, and we have therefore rested on his advice that it really is not justified. Nor do such features as the fact that the church and church hall are on opposite sides of the


road—regrettable though that is—alter the balance of the situation.
All that I can say is that as soon as I studied the case, when I saw that my hon. Friend had raised it, I recognised that it was near the borderline, that the local people felt very strongly about it and that there were obvious difficulties. I therefore had a further word with my right hon. Friend about the matter, and in the light of that and the fact that I have been impressed by what my hon. Friend has said this evening, and in recognition of his own strong convictions about the situation and the long duration of the requests of the borough council, I will ask our Divisional Road Engineer to put his engineers to work to make a special observation of this place over the next three months and give us a report as to the pedestrian movement there. I will undertake that when we receive that report we will review the position and see whether there are sufficient grounds for altering the conclusion that we have reached.
I can say that quite objectively and sincerely, because I want my hon. Friend and his constituents in Watford to feel that the matter is not being considered in an unimaginative and bureaucratic manner, but as a human problem. Nevertheless, we have to consider the simple road safety device of the pedestrian crossing in its national context, and however much I should like to be able to agree to this local request I must say that unless we are satisfied that it will match up to the national standards which we have been convinced by experience are the right ones to apply we cannot agree to it. I certainly give my hon. Friend that undertaking, however, and if he is satisfied with that, in three months' time, when we have our report, I undertake to look at the matter again.

11.53 p.m.

Mr. Gilbert Longden: I endeavoured to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, in order to intervene before the Parliamentary Secretary replied to my hon. Friend. Perhaps it is just as well that I did not succeed,

because the final words of the Parliamentary Secretary have greatly modified what I intended to say. I had intended to intervene for two reasons; first, because I know this place extremely well, since it is on the fringe of my constituency, and, secondly, because there is a similar case within my constituency, in the neighbouring village of Bushey.
A few weeks ago I was astonished to see, in the Harcourt Room, the Mayor, Town Clerk and apparently half the Corporation of Watford having tea with my hon. Friend. I was delighted to see them, because although they are not all of my political pursuasion, they are all friends of mine, but I was astonished that, busy public servants as they are, they should have to spend half a day and perhaps more in travelling to this House in order to discuss the question of a pedestrian crossing.
However noble a public servant the Divisional Road Engineer may be—and I am sure that he is an admirable public servant—I cannot think that his views on the matter could possibly outweigh those of the Corporation of Watford and everybody to whom my hon. Friend has referred as being in favour of this crossing. It is quite monstrous that when the Conservative Party talks about "town hall; not Whitehall" we should cavil at a small matter like a pedestrian crossing in a town or village.
We are not concerned with the fact that there are thousands of other crossings all over the country. The fact is that in this particular place one is badly needed in the opinion of the local inhabitants, who should know. If it is a borderline case as my hon. Friend has said, surely it would be better to give it the benefit of the doubt rather than that there should perhaps be a fatal accident at that spot. However, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his concluding remarks and I hope that on reconsideration the Ministry will grant this pedestrian crossing to the Borough of Watford.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Twelve o'clock.